Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL

Order for consideration read.

To he considered upon Thursday 17 December.

GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) (No. 2) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday 17 December.

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 17 December.

KEBLE COLLEGE OXFORD BILL [Lords] ( By Order)

SELWYN COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

HAMPSHIRE (LYNDHURST BYPASS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS (LONDON) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 17 December.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Rating Reform

Mr. McCusker: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to publish proposals for a poll tax in Northern Ireland, including a proposed timetable for its introduction.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Stanley): The Green Paper of January 1986, "Paying for Local Government", which forms the basis of the

Great Britain reforms, made it clear that the proposals did not apply to Northern Ireland. That reflects the fact that local government arrangements in Northern Ireland are significantly different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend has therefore decided to monitor the development of the proposals in England and Wales before deciding whether, or to what extent, they should be applied in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McCusker: If that reply is not an Irish joke, is it not at least an inversion of logic to suggest that one monitors what one does to 97·5 per cent. of the population before applying it to the remaining 2·5 per cent.? As all local government services of any note in Northern Ireland are now administered by central Government, and as central Government now collects all the local government rates in Northern Ireland, should not the poll tax have been applied first to the 2·5 per cent. and monitored, and then applied to the 97·5 per cent.?

Mr. Stanley: I suggest that the position is eminently logical, as 90 per cent. of local government functions in the Province are carried out centrally rather than by district councils. In those circumstances, and when making a major change in the local government financial system, given that there is a completely different base for local government in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of Great Britain, it seems eminently sensible to monitor the change in Great Britain.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current level of unemployment in Northern Ireland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): At 8 October 1987, the latest date for which unemployment figures are available, there were 124,701 unemployed claimants in Northern Ireland, representing 18·2 per cent. of the working population. Compared with the same period last year, that is a decrease in unemployment of almost 6,000.

Mr. Cryer: Is it not a scandalous reflection of the failure of the Government's economic policies for the United Kingdom as a whole, and Northern Ireland in particular, that nearly 20 per cent. of adults in Northern Ireland are unemployed? Does that not contribute to the maintenance of the secretarian divide, because there are two and a half times more male adult unemployed Catholics than there are Protestants? When does the Minister expect the Government's economic policies to start working to produce some jobs in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Viggers: As regards unemployment generally, Northern Ireland is now benefiting from the general upturn in the economy of the United Kingdom. If I may amplify my earlier figures, unemployment is now down by 900 a month over a three-month average. We regard that as satisfactory, and the signs are that it will continue. Of course, it is still too high, and we are doing everything that we can to reduce it.
As for the level of sectarian distinction between the Catholic and Protestant communities, we accept that having two and a half times as many Catholics as Protestants unemployed is unacceptable, and we propose to introduce legislation as soon as possible on that point.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the largest numbers of employed people in Northern Ireland are in agriculture? Does he also agree that if the so-called remedies from Europe are applied to Northern Ireland agriculture they will have a very adverse effect on Northern Ireland's family farms? Will he declare the devastated areas of Northern Ireland disaster areas in order to give short-term employment?

Mr. Viggers: The Government have been active in remedying the damage by flooding and in assisting those people who suffered damage. On the general issues, it is not possible for Northern Ireland to stand aside from the main trend within Europe. It is necessary for this to be handled on a European Community basis rather than on a Northern Ireland basis.

Mr. Hume: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that in Northern Ireland a Catholic is two and a half times more likely to be unemployed than a Protestant. If we are to solve this problem, we must tell the truth about it. The unemployment problem in Northern Ireland as it stands today cannot be laid entirely at the feet of the Government. As the New Ireland Forum said in its document "The cost of violence", the paramilitary campaign of violence by the Provisional IRA over the past 20 years has directly cost 39,000 jobs in manufacturing industry between 1970 and 1980, and there are only 90,000 people employed in Northern Ireland in manufacturing industry. That campaign has caused £11 billion worth of damage to the economy of Ireland, north and south. If that money were floating around in the economy, fewer people would be unemployed. If we are to tackle the problem of discrimination, we must do it on all fronts, not just on some. We need fair employment laws, but we also need inward investment in the areas of high unemployment in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Viggers: I strongly support the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman's points. If we were merely to remove unemployment from one area and allocate it to another, we would not be doing a good service to Northern Ireland. We need further investment in Northern Ireland, leading to further jobs. I endorse and support the hon. Gentleman's activity in promoting investment in his part of Northern Ireland and in the rest of the Province.

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Anglo-Irish Agreement provides the best opportunity to solve many of these problems? Does he further agree that the steps that will be taken to introduce that legislation—which will be agreed between the Government and the Government of the Irish Republic — will provide an equitable basis on which to improve the ratio in favour of fairer employment opportunities for Catholics?

Mr. Viggers: It is this Government's duty to bring forward the legislation, and we hope that it will have broad support within Northern Ireland.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Does the Minister agree that one of the causes of unemployment in Northern Ireland is the IRA's vicious campaign of threats and murder against business men and workers? Will he explain to the House what steps are being taken to improve that unacceptable situation?

Mr. Viggers: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other ministerial colleagues are working hard to

improve the political and security climate. My narrow area of responsibility is the economy. If we can improve the quality of investment and the level of employment in Northern Ireland, that will make a contribution to Northern Ireland generally.

Mr. McNamara: Given that nine further states in the United States are proposing to introduce legislation on the MacBride principles and bearing in mind the question mark that that puts over further investment in Northern Ireland, is it not in the interests of the Government to publish early their White Paper showing how far they embrace the recommendations of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights? Is it not also important for the Government to state precisely their attitude towards the goal of reducing the ratio of unemployment of Catholic and Protestant males from 21/2:1 to 11/2:1 over five years? If the Government are unable to accept that goal, will they say why not? If the Government say that they seek to improve the situation in other areas rather than in some, can the Minister tell us the areas in which he hopes to have that improvement and the number of jobs that will be involved?

Mr. Viggers: We are giving the most urgent and careful consideration to the proposals of the Standing Advisory Commission and we intend to bring forward proposals for legislation very soon. If we were to react too quickly, the hon. Gentleman would be the first to say that we had not given careful consideration to the commission's proposals. I hope that when, in due course—it will be soon—the proposals are put before the House, they will have the support of the hon. Gentleman.

Universities (Research Places)

Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to fund an increase in the number of research places available to postgraduate students at Queen's University and the University of Ulster; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): On 30 November 1987 I announced a new "Distinction Awards" scheme designed to attract to the Northern Ireland universities postgraduate students of the highest ability. Under the scheme, the Department of Education will fund up to 20 additional research awards each year tenable at the Queen's University of Belfast or the University of Ulster. Each award holder will receive £2,000 per annum in addition to the normal postgraduate award.

Mr. Brazier: That is welcome news. May I ask my hon. Friend for his assurance that the extra places will be allocated fairly across the religious divide? I should declare an interest: I am a Catholic married to an Irish Protestant.

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the welcome that he has given to the proposals. I assure him that there will be no religious discrimination whatsoever in the giving of the awards.

Joint Educational Projects

Mr. David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make available more resources to enable schools from different religious backgrounds to undertake joint educational projects; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Mawhinney: I have no plans to make further resources available. On 14 September I announced the availability of an extra f200,000 for new initiatives in cross-community contacts. The scheme, which is directed at young people under the age of 19, has already encouraged those working in this field to submit 65 applications for grant from the special fund.

Mr. Davis: I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in welcoming the previous decision and hoping that the future will see more resources allocated. Already too many children grow up in an atmosphere of prejudice in Northern Ireland and become fuel and recruits for terrorist organisations. If the problems of Northern Ireland are to be solved, is it not necessary to find ways to increase contact between young people in that troubled Province?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support and I entirely endorse the sentiments that he has expressed. It is important that we should find ways to bring the people of the Province together, to foster their relationships and understanding of their differences, and to ensure that those differences do not become points of division later in life.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that in answer to the previous question he may have uncon-sciously given a wrong impression—

Rev. Martin Smyth: It will indeed relate to the question, but I must put on record that the tertiary—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot go back to the previous question.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that joint community education imposes tremendous responsibility on the voluntary schools system to teach even civics, which would allow us to move together as people and as a nation, rather than have two separate identities? Will he acknowledge that the separation and division are at that level of education rather than at the tertiary level, as implied earlier?

Dr. Mawhinney: I certainly endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said. If I gave any impression in an answer given from the Dispatch Box that there is division at the tertiary level, that is quite untrue and it was not my intention. I do not think that I gave that impression, but if I did it was not intended.
Part of the reason for the project in secondary schools is to explore ways in which schoolchildren from the two communities can be brought together to carry out joint projects, so that they will have an opportunity to learn together and about each other. The idea is that the absence of money should not hinder the bringing together of our young people in special projects.

Mr. Kilfedder: Is it not time to end the religious apartheid in education in Northern Ireland? Both education systems, which are supported by the taxpayer, divide youngsters from the earliest age, even from kindergarten, when they should be learning to live and play together and getting to know each other, so that Northern Ireland will have a future.

Dr. Mawhinney: There will be much support for the sentiment expressed by the hon. Gentleman, and I take careful note of what he has said.

Mr. Alton: I welcome what the Minister has said and his speech on the establishment of the community relations unit, but what progress has been made to assist Hazelwood college? Does he agree that integrated education should be actively promoted, especially in his discussions with members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy?

Dr. Mawhinney: I have had a meeting with representatives of the governors of Hazelwood college in the past few days. We have agreed jointly that I will reach a decision on their application to become grant-aided in the first half of next year. That decision is acceptable to the governors and to me. It will give them an opportunity in the meantime to increase numbers in the school.
With regard to integrated education, the Government see a role—perhaps even a marginally increased role—for integrated schools in the Province. It is not part of my responsibility or intention to do anything that would make the development of integrated education within the law and the constraints that we all know apply more difficult than it is at the moment.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister bear in mind that when the project got off the ground in Enniskillen the parents were kept completely in the dark? The children were told that they were having a holiday and no parents were consulted. As the Roman Catholic Church runs its own schools in Northern Ireland, will the Minister give a categorical assurance to the Protestant community that there will be consultation with the parents of all Protestant children and that they will have the right to say yes or no to any such project, just as the Roman Catholic Church has already said no to integrated education?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am not quite sure to what specific event the hon. Gentleman is referring. I want to make it clear that the scheme is entirely voluntary. People are invited to apply for money for projects if they wish to do so. The initiative does not lie with me. I am not forcing anyone to do anything, and I am not applying pressure. I am responding to what I identify as demand in the community for people to be allowed to come together and to do things together. That is good, and I am willing to finance it for the future of Northern Ireland. There is no sense in which anyone is being allowed to exercise a veto. It will be for the schools, parents and pupils to decide for themselves.

Mr. Jim Marshall: We are all pleased to hear the Minister say that he wants to bring both communities together and to provide finance for that. How does he square that with the view of the Department of Education, as expressed in a letter to a constituent of mine on 22 October.
there is no need in Northern Ireland for teachers who specialise in Multicultural Education.
That is the view of the Department of Education. Is it the Government's view? If not, what steps do the Government intend to bring forward to reverse that policy decision?

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman has a slight semantic difficulty. There is no great need for teachers in multicultural education in Northern Ireland because 'we do not have a multicultural society in the sense in which that term is understood in England. Society in Northern Ireland is divided on religious grounds. The policy of the Department of Education is of education for mutual understanding. As hon. Members representing Northern


Ireland constituencies will be aware, I have been increasing pressure on training schools in the matter of education for mutual understanding in general. I believe that it is very difficult for teachers to teach about the other community if they have no experience of that other community. We are strongly and firmly committed to education for mutual understanding, but we do not have a multicultural society in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McGrady: Does the Minister agree that apartheid in education does not exist in Northern Ireland, but that there is the exercise of parental choice? Does he also agree that the voluntary sector embraces both the Catholic and Protestant community and state schools? Does he accept that there is ample opportunity for inter-religious communicational projects between schools if proper encouragement is given, and will he ensure that his Department encourages such intercourse in the immediate future?

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman will know that last April I announced that a new policy on parental choice would come into effect in our schools in September 1988. This has been widely welcomed, not least by parents, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his additional support.
As for bringing people together, the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that, at the educational level aimed at the under-19s, the Government have much increased their determination to try to achieve that very desirable goal. I should be grateful for the hon. Gentleman's help, and that of his hon. Friends and other right hon. and hon. Members in Northern Ireland, in doing what they can to encourage our young people to spend more time contacting one another, and less time drifting apart and causing social or perhaps other and worse problems in the future.

Security

Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effect of the Anglo-Irish Agreement on the security situation in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about cross-border security co-operation.

Mr. Molyneaux: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): Since 23 November a major security operation has been mounted by the Irish security forces, supported in Northern Ireland by the RUC and the Army, which has resulted in a number of important arrests and some finds of explosives and munitions.
Since I last answered questions in the House on 12 November, two civilians have died in sectarian attacks. The security forces have continued their determined and courageous work. So far this year 431 people have been charged with serious offences, including 27 with murder, while 247 weapons, approximately 18,000 rounds of ammunition and nearly 13,000 lb of explosives have been recovered.
In addition, the Garda Siochana has recovered, up to the end of October, 123 weapons, 10,000 rounds of

ammunition and some 4,000 lb of explosives. That does not include a product of the recent search operation, which I understand will be announced this afternoon. It included 50 weapons and four bunkers which are believed to have been for storage of possible shipments.
Recent events north and south of the border have emphasised most clearly the vital need for both Governments to co-operate closely in the defeat of terrorism throughout the island of Ireland.

Mr. Flannery: While thanking the Secretary of State for his answer, may I point out that the linking of the two other questions with mine is not quite correct? I am grateful for his information about the security position, and I deplore the terrible events that have occurred. However, my question is quite separate from the orthodox questions on security, which could well have been asked before the Anglo-Irish Agreement question. What I have asked in the question is what effect the right hon. Gentleman thinks that agreement has had on security. I am anxious that his answer should convey to me that, as I hope, the present accelerated rate of killing is temporary and will settle down.

Mr. King: With respect, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman listened to my answer.

Mr. Flannery: I listened very carefully.

Mr. King: At the start of my answer I drew attention to what I believe is the most significant security operation ever conducted within the Republic of Ireland. It was conducted in the closest co-operation and preparation with the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army north of the border. It is the most tangible and obvious demonstration of the close security co-operation that is absolutely vital if we are to defeat terrorism, which is now so clearly perceived as the evil that it is for both communities, north and south of the border.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Despite the promising words from Dublin after the Enniskillen atrocity, is my right hon. Friend aware of the scepticism about the full political will of the Irish Republic to defeat terrorism, when it still withholds the direct contact of its armed forces with those of the United Kingdom? What is being done about that?

Mr. King: I am sure that my hon. Friend will not wish in any way to encourage scepticism on the subject. Rather, he will wish to do all that he can to work for the closest possible co-operation. His knowledge, which is profound, of the circumstances of the island of Ireland will make him well aware of the vital importance—given the difficulties posed by the border and the two jurisdictions—of close co-operation. I assure him of our commitment to achieving the closest and most effective co-operation in working with the Government of the Republic.

Mr. Molyneaux: Given the failure to discover the Libyan ground-to-air missiles that are known to be concealed in the Irish Republic, will the Secretary of State make representations to ensure that British aircraft using Dublin airport are afforded the same protection as that given at Shannon airport to Russian aircraft on their way to Cuba?

Mr. King: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to discuss the particular detail of this matter across the Floor of the House. We are anxious to respond effectively to any problems that may face us.

Mr. Latham: What could be worse for the image of Northern Ireland than the appalling sight of sectarian killings, which make it look like Sicily or Don Corleone's New York? How can anybody with an ounce of decency continue with such horror, particularly after Enniskillen?

Mr. King: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. There are evil tendencies among some extremes of the population in Northern Ireland that are all too easily inflamed. A heavy responsibility lies on everybody, whatever position they are in—particularly those in any position of responsibility or representational position—in Northern Ireland to do everything that they can to ensure that no such passions are aroused and, rather more, that they are condemned.

Mr. Duffy: Does the Secretary of State recall the seemingly inevitable confusion that attended the recent application for the extradition of Paul Anthony Kane, which received the customary misdirected criticism? Will the Secretary of State say why errors on warrants continue to bedevil the system?

Mr. King: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the circumstances of the matter and that I am unable to comment on something that is sub judice.

Rev. William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is the duty of all hon. Members and parties in the House to give the security forces — the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Army — unequivocal support in their fight against terrorism? Will the Secretary of State comment on the fact that the five members of the SDLP including the chairwoman, who is a justice of the peace, clearly and definitely voted against such support when a resolution was put to Magherafelt district council?

Mr. King: I am unfamiliar with the terms of the motion, but, without entering into the detail of the case, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's opening comments. It is the responsibility of everyone who is determined to defeat the evil of violence and terrorism to give total support to the RUC and the security forces in the tough challenge that they face.

Mr. William Ross: I listened to the Secretary of State's comments about the security position in the Irish Republic, for which he seemed to be claiming some degree of responsibility. Will he say what he has done since he last answered questions in the House to improve progress in the fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland, for which he is totally responsible?

Mr. King: I certainly was not seeking in any way to claim responsibility for the search operation in the Irish Republic. I should make it clear that we sought to give them every support. The security forces put themselves at some risk and suffered casualties in their support of that search. With regard to the work that is continuing and the activities that are progressing, I am unable to discuss in detail a number of the steps that I have been taking, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are totally committed to that work.

Mr. Gow: In which other countries of Europe does Her Majesty's Government have less satisfactory arrangements for extradition than with the Republic of Ireland?

Mr. King: With no other country in Europe do we have the system of the backing of warrants, which is an

important point to recognise in this regard. If the point that my hon. Friend is making concerns the vital nature of an effective, speedy and fair extradition process, I can assure him that we are committed to that. There is a later question on the Order Paper on this subject, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we are determined to work to that end.

Mr. Hume: Following the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), will the Secretary of State please confirm that my party is the only one from Northern Ireland represented in this House that has no association of any description, and never has had, with any paramilitary or violent organisation?—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hume: Furthermore, will he confirm that the hon. Member in question and his leader—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hume: Furthermore, will he confirm that the hon. Member in question and his leader have on many occasions been seen in the streets with masked men, taking salutes from masked men, and using paramilitary organisations when it suited them? May I restate for the benefit of the House that my party fully and unequivocally supports the security forces in seeking out anybody who commits a crime in Northern Ireland?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I have noted, and the House will have noted, the categorical statement of the hon. Member. But what his intervention has clearly brought home to the House is that, of all things at this time—and I say it to hon. Members in all quarters of the House—what Northern Ireland needs is people who try to reduce differences, who try to build cooperation, and not those who seek the whole time to exploit division.

Rev. William McCrea: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. I am not taking points of order.

Mr. McNamara: Is the Secretary of State aware that we on the Opposition Benches welcome the great improvement in cross-border security evidenced in the past few days and salute the work of both the forces of the Republic and our own in Northern Ireland, and the degree of cooperation which they have shown over those exercises? But will he also recall—going back to the earlier statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) — that one of the provisions of the agreement was the securing of greater confidence in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland? Is he yet in a position to announce any further steps in that direction and, in particular, as it hits mostly the poor of both communities, is he yet in a position to say whether the Government are prepared to repeal the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971?

Mr. King: I cannot comment on the latter point, which the hon. Gentleman bowled in rather unexpectedly, but I will certainly look into it.
The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the vast improvement in cross-border security co-operation, and that is what we are striving for. I have never concealed from the House the very considerable task that lies ahead of us. The very exercise that he referred to, the scale of the


search and the problems of what actually emerged from the search, leave some very difficult questions to be answered and still pose a considerable challenge to the security forces, both north and south of the border. It is certainly a good start, but I do not underestimate the scale of the job that has now to be done.

Sir John Farr: One of the benefits of the Anglo-Irish Agreement—I use the term advisedly—was that in times of emergency police forces on both sides of the border could cross it in hot pursuit of a criminal. Has any agreement to that effect been signed, and have any incidents taken place recently?

Mr. King: Not on that specific matter, but there are certain understandings of the ways in which co-operation can take place and certain arrangements that can be made, so that the security forces can give extremely close support in that sort of incident.

Police Authority

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Stanley: My right hon. Friend last met the chairman of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland on 23 November to discuss matters relating to the authority's responsibilities. The details are confidential.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Following that discussion, will the Minister give an assurance that the Army uniforms, which were apparently supplied by Mr. Frank Turner of QED to the RUC for cash and sent to Northern Ireland in an unmarked lorry, were not, and will not at any time, be used by RUC personnel or others to pose as British service men?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman has tabled a considerable number of written questions about that matter. I hope that he will wait until we give the answers to them.

Mr. Mallon: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, since 1965, 733 people have been extradited to Great Britain from the Republic of Ireland and 158 from the Republic of Ireland to the north of Ireland, giving a total of 891? Given the views of the Chief Constable of the RUC about extradition—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Has this anything to do with the police?

Mr. Mallon: The views of the Chief Constable of the RUC on this issue are very important. In the light of his views and the figures that I have given, is the view that Britain is a less-favoured nation in respect of extradition very inaccurate?

Mr. Stanley: The Government attach profound importance to the fact that there should be no hiding place for terrorists either north or south of the border and that extradition arrangements must reflect that policy.

Mr. Kilfedder: Is the Minister aware that the spirit of rapprochement, generated as a result of the atrocity in Enniskillen among ordinary people, is being dissipated by sectarian killings? Will he make it clear to the chairman of the Police Authority that we must do everything possible

to get people to support the police and to reduce the number of unemployed in Northern Ireland by encouraging them to join the police force? I ask the Minister to appeal to the people of Northern Ireland fully to support the security forces.

Mr. Stanley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we make that appeal at every possible opportunity. It is of profound importance that the entire community gives every support to the security forces. That is a fundamental requirement and we shall continue to make that point clear at every opportunity.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether, when he had talks with the chairman of the Police Authority, he discussed the fact that none of the SDLP representatives have ever called upon their people to join the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Defence Regiment or the British Army? Will he remedy that position by calling upon them now to do so, after the attack on the Ulster Democratic Unionist Members, when their own leader refused to talk to the Unionist party leadership and chose to talk to the IRA?

Mr. Stanley: It is the Government's clear policy that the security forces in the Province, whether the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Ulster Defence Regiment, should be open to people from both communities. We wish to see the strongest representation from representatives of all religious denominations in the security forces in the Province.

Anglo-Irish Agreement

Mr. Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Mr. Tom King: We are making worthwhile progress in our work under the agreement and are giving particular priority to our aim of enhancing security co-operation with the Republic of Ireland. The agreement has great potential to benefit all in Northern Ireland and the Republic.

Mr. Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that all those who believe in the Union should support the Anglo-Irish Agreement in that the agreement is a guarantee from both Ireland and Britain that the status of Northern Ireland will never be changed against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland?

Mr. King: That assurance of the principle of consent is at the heart of the agreement. It is very important indeed, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend, even in his present condition, for his support.

Extradition

Rev. William McCrea: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the extradition of terrorists from the Republic of Ireland to the United Kingdom, in the light of recent problems in this area.

Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the implications for his policy on seeking extraditions from the Republic of Ireland of the new extradition arrangements agreed by the Irish Government.

Mr. Tom King: We welcome the Irish Government's decision to ratify the European convention on the suppression of terrorism. We note, however, that they have now introduced further procedural steps in the hacking of warrants process. We are naturally concerned that these should not impede the extradition arrangements within these islands, and we welcome the Taoiseach's commitment to review them if they are not working satisfactorily.

Mr. McCrea: In the light of the Prime Minister's statements in the House on several occasions, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government believe that the regulations put in by the South of Ireland Government inhibit rather than help the extradition of terrorists, which is not helpful in the fight against terrorism? When will the British Government call for the extradition of Owen Carron?

Mr. King: Obviously, I am not prepared to comment on individual cases, but on the general matter I have made clear our views on the importance of effective extradition arrangements and our commitment to work for those in the defeat of terrorism.

Mr. Hayes: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree that many Conservative Members are bitterly disappointed with the new extradition arrangements, because they will give precisely the wrong signal to the Loyalist community. In reality, will the new arrangements make any difference, or produce any obstacle, to the extradition of terrorists?

Mr. King: We have made clear our concern about the inclusion of the role of the Irish Attorney-General and the problems that that could cause. We are obviously anxious to ensure—and we hope— that our fears are not well founded, and we shall be working closely with, and making our representations clear to, the Irish Government to try to ensure the most effective arrangements possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 December.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Winnick: Are we to have a statement before the Christmas recess on what action, if any, is to be undertaken to deal with the present acute crisis in the National Health Service? When beds are not available for young children, as at the Children's hospital in Birmingham, and when at the Queen Elizabeth hospital cancer and kidney patients continue to wait for beds, what evidence is there, if any, that the NHS is safe in the right hon. Lady's hands?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had been here when I last answered questions, he would have heard of the enormous number of operations that are now taking place—about 2,360,000 a year; of the 6·5 million inpatients a year in hospital; and of something like 38 million out-patient attendance in hospitals. He would also

have heard of our excellent record on perinatal mortality, which means that some 3,000 babies are now surviving who would not have survived some 10 years ago.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Has my right hon. Friend, during her busy schedule, observed that, for the first time, the miners have now produced 4 tonnes per manshift, and that is double the production during the time of Lord Robens? Is that not partially attributable to the wise policies conducted by Her Majesty's Government?

The Prime Minister: It is very good news from the viewpoint of the miners and it shows how ridiculous is the overtime ban. It also shows the Government's wisdom in their excellent investment in mining equipment.

Mr. Kinnock: In an unprecedented statement this week, the presidents of the Royal Colleges of Physicians, Surgeons, and Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said—I shall use their word — that there is a deep financial "crisis" in the National Health Service. Does the Prime Minister agree with them?

The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, spending has gone up enormously on the National Health Service. Spending on the family practitioner services has gone up by 43 per cent in real terms since the last Labour Government. It has gone up by 26 per cent. in real terms on hospital and community services. Capital spending on hospital and community services has gone up by 42 per cent. Indeed, the Government's record on health services far exceeds that of any other. As I have indicated to the right hon. Gentleman, expenditure on health services will continue to increase further.

Mr. Kinnock: The House and the country will note that the Prime Minister rejects the advice of the presidents of the royal colleges. Is that not further evidence that she is suffering from incurable complacency as well as untreatable arrogance in these matters as in many others? Following her litany of figures, may I say, in the words of Sir Raymond Hoffenberg, the president of the Royal College of Physicians:
We know we will be hit by all the statistics … but the basic fact is that we are spending less on our health service than any other developed European country. The bottom line is that we had a service which was the envy of the world which we ran very cheaply. We are now trying to run it too cheaply.
The statement says:
In spite of the efforts of doctors, nurses and other hospital staff, patient care is deteriorating."[Interruption.]
The House and the country are listening to those boos, when the Presidents of the royal colleges, are saying:
Patient care is deteriorating. Acute hospital services have almost reached breaking point. Morale is depressingly low.
Does the Prime Minister not think that that is a crisis?

The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. Had the right hon. Gentleman listened to the figures, I would have thought that he would commend the Health Service on the excellent work that it is doing. I gave the annual figures for in-patients, for out-patients, and for operations. May I also point out that the Government have increased the proportion of the GNP spent on the National Health Service from 4·8 per cent. under the last Labour Government to 5·5 per cent. Not only has the GNP gone up, but the proportion spent has also gone up in real terms. Other countries are able to devote more to health care services because more is contributed privately, both from


private insurance and from families' pockets. If the doctors think what they have written, they must be very thankful that there is not a Labour Government in power.

Mr. Kinnock: In the 40-year history of the National Health Service the presidents of the royal colleges have never found if necessary to speak to any Government in the terms that they have spoken to the Prime Minister's Government. Can she not learn from that, or from the evidence of patients, nurses and other professions in the National Health Service? When Mr. Ian Todd, the president of the Royal College of Surgeons says:
Managers are telling surgeons to do less work to balance the books.
does she not recognise that she is responsible for setting lives against sums? What will she do about it?

The Prime Minister: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. How can the Prime Minister possibly answer with all this noise going on?

Mr. Foulkes: You, Mr. Speaker, are like a Pakistani umpire.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark at once.

Mr. Foulkes: I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

The Prime Minister: In the 40 years of the NHS there have never been more patients treated, whether as inpatients or out-patients. There have never been more accident and emergency cases treated. There have never been more heart bypass operations or hip replacements —[Interruption.] Of course hon. Gentlemen will interrupt, because they cannot bear to hear the facts.
There are more cataract operations, more bone marrow transplants, more kidney transplants, more cervical smear tests, more people treated for kidney transplants and for chronic renal failure. —[Interruption.] Opposition Members will shout because they cannot bear the fact that the Government have a far better record than they have ever had. With regard to the future, if the Leader of the the Opposition had listened to me earlier he would have heard that next year spending on the NHS will increase by £1·1 billion. I mentioned that figure because I have heard Labour Members on the radio suggesting that an extra £200 million would do the task. Next year there will be an extra £1·1 billion—five times as much.

Mr. Riddick: Bearing in mind that the demands for health care are never-ending and the fact that private spending on health care in this country is among the lowest in Western Europe, does my right hon. Friend believe that the time has come to introduce tax relief for individuals who take out health care insurance?

The Prime Minister: No. It is more important to leave people to make their own decisions about what they do with their money than to increase reliefs for a particular sort of expenditure.

Mr. Allen McKay: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McKay: Irrespective of the statistics that the Prime Minister throws out, and irrespective of the light attitude

that she has adopted towards the statement from the Royal College of Surgeons, will she take notice of the National Association of Health Authorities, which reported that the hospital service is £200 million underfunded? Will she give an assurance to the House that the much needed increase in nurses' pay will not have to be found from the existing area health budgets?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has given the figure of £200 million which I mentioned earlier. I have already told him that next year the increase going to the NHS will be £1·1 billion. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the previous Labour Government slashed the NHS programme. They cut new hospitals by one third, cut capital spending for two years running and, having supported a strike against patients, presided over an increase in waiting lists of 250,000, to record levels under Labour.

Mr. Heddle: On the matter of those employed in the Health Service, nurses in particular, and the community charge, will my right hon. Friend confirm that among the options which she and her right hon. Friends considered as a replacement for the present unfair and outdated system was capital valuation, coupled with a local income tax? Does she agree that that would bring hardship and chaos to every individual and their families, and that the Labour party, whose policy it is, is discredited for having pursued it?

The Prime Minister: Capital valuation would have been infinitely worse than even the present basis of valuation. A local tax, similar to a local income tax, would put an even heavier burden on those who pay income tax and would mean that the amount they had to pay would be greatly in excess of a community charge.

Mr. Nellist: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Nellist: Instead of burying her head in 10-year-old NHS statistics and repeating them like a cracked record, what would the Prime Minister say to Adrian Woolford, a seven-year-old Coventry lad, who has waited two years for a heart operation? What would she say to the parents of Chintu Kumar, a one-day-old baby, who died after a 100-mile dash from Coventry to Liverpool because half of Birmingham children's hospital beds were closed? What would she say to the parents of dozens of kids in the midlands who, tomorrow night, will meet midlands Members about the crisis? She might be able to buy her health and the health of her kids, but our families cannot. Does she not care?

The Prime Minister: Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that the statistics that I give are not out of date but are updated. The number of bypass operations, cataract operations and many other operations that are now performed on children could not have been performed 10 or 15 years ago. The number of nurses on paediatric work has greatly increased over and above what it was under Labour, and the number of paediatricians is also up. Services are rapidly increasing. Under this Government, not only have we had a great increase in the gross national product, but we have devoted an increasing proportion to


the National Health Service, and the amount of care far exceeds that which occurred under Labour or anything that could ever occur under Labour.

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Field: Will my right hon. Friend find time to consider a survey that was published by the Department of Trade and Industry? It shows that of the 300 foreign-owned companies in this country 90 per cent. said that industrial relations had improved in recent years, and that 96 per cent. said that the performance of their British subsidiaries was equal to or better than that of their foreign-owned subsidiaries. Is that not yet another endorsement of the Government's policy?

The Prime Minister: Yes, it is excellent news. The success of this Government and the response of people to their policies are being recognised the world over. That is good news for everyone in this country.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Given the Prime Minister's concern for independent companies, will she spend some time today considering the implications of British Petroleum's likely doubling of its shares in Britoil? Britoil is an independent company in Scotland. Given that that company employs so many people in Scotland and that the smell of the Guinness takeover still lingers in the nostrils of the people of Scotland, will she assure us that. first, the Government will use their golden share to protect Britoil and, secondly, that they will use every opportunity to safeguard against insider dealing?

The Prime Minister: Insider dealing is a matter of the criminal law. It is not a matter for me. With regard to I3P's purchase of shares in Britoil, I understand that it is a commercial transaction, and it is not for us to interfere.

Mr. McCusker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take points of order after business questions.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY I4 DECEMBER — — Until 7 o'clock private Members' motions.
Afterwards progress on remaining stages of the Local Government Bill.
TUESDAY I5 DECEMBER — — Completion of remaining stages of the Local Government Bill.
Motions on the Welsh Rate Support Grant Report 1988–89 (HC 142), the Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary (No. 2) Report 1984–85 (HC 158) and the Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary (No. 2) Report 1985–86 (HC 159).
WEDNESDAY I6 DECEMBER — Second Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill (1st day).
Motion relating to the appointment of Mr. John Bryant Bourn CB as Comptroller and Auditor General.
THURSDAY I7 DECEMBER — Completion of Second Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill.
FRIDAY I8 DECEMBER—Adjournment motions.

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for responding positively to our representations about providing two full days for the debate next week on the poll tax Bill. In view of the importance of the business and the number of hon. Members who will undoubtedly want to speak on Second Reading, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that, if there are lengthy statements or other business before the debate on the poll tax, business may continue after 10 o'clock? Following the right hon. Gentleman's discussions with the Secretary of State for the Environment, after his promise last week, will the right hon. Gentleman inform us when the poll tax rebate regulations will be published since those details must have a direct bearing on the debate on the poll tax Bill?
Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to make a statement next week on the reasons why the report by Sir Robin Ibbs on the career Civil Service is not to be published? In that context, does he accept that it is important that that statement is made, in the light of the words of the former Cabinet Secretary, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, in The Times this morning that
the issue of lifelong confidentiality is a red herring: what that argument is about is unauthorised disclosure"?
The Home Office has recently announced a change in the manner in which immigration cases are to be handled. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that those are not fully implemented until proper consultations have been undertaken to ensure that Members of the House who are involved in such cases have a direct involvement?
Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement on the Government's defence policy in the wake of the treaty and the super-power meeting in Washington this week? The Secretary of State for Defence told the NATO Defence Ministers last month that he wants what he called "compensations" for the withdrawal and discussion of land-based intermediate missiles? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that a statement is made next week so that the Secretary of State for Defence can tell us about his ambitions for rearmament?
I note that there is to be no debate next week on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and the serious situation that has arisen as a result of the report of the Committee of Selection that it is not able, at present, to recommend the setting up of that Committee? In the light of that unexpected report from the Committee of Selection, I understand that it would be sensible to allow a short period for reflection in the hope that a way forward can be found. However, the Leader of the House will recognise that this issue must come before the House as early as possible in January, regardless of the embarrassment that that will cause the Government.

Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure that it will cause the Government all the embarrassment that the right hon. Gentleman anticipates. Let me answer the questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked me in the order in which he asked them. First, he asked me about the Local Government Finance Bill. We can certainly have discussions through the usual channels to see whether what he suggests would be helpful to the House. I give an undertaking that I shall do my very best to keep statements away from those days to enable as long a debate as possible.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the decisions to be made about uprating income support in relation to the community charge. All I can tell him is that decisions on the amount of uprating will be announced in due course. I cannot be more specific than that at the moment.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the report of Sir Robin Ibbs. I shall refer that to the Prime Minister, but I am unable to give him the information that he requires at the moment.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the Home Office review of hon. Members' correspondence and stops. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department announced on Second Reading of the Immigration Bill on 16 November, he is reviewing the procedures under which hon. Members take up immigration cases with his Department, whether in the form of written representations or of interventions, especially stops in port cases. The review is not yet complete, but when my right hon. Friend and the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), have reached detailed conclusions they will be the subject of consultation with both sides of the House and with hon. Members generally.
I shall refer the question of a statement on defence to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
As the Leader of the Opposition said, I stated last week that I was happy to arrange a debate on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs before Christmas, if that was the wish of the House. However, following discussions through the usual channels, I understand that it would be for the more general convenience of hon. Members if there was a longer time to consider the report of the Committee of Selection. Taking account of that, I propose to arrange a debate on that matter immediately after the House returns in January.

Sir Ian Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend recall that he gave a modestly encouraging reply to a question that I first started putting to his predecessor before Christmas 1986 about a debate on science policy? When are we to have such a debate? It is becoming rather urgent.

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's deep concern about those matters and his persistence. I hope that he will be tolerant of me for a little longer.

Mr. David Steel: In view of today's recommendation by the British Caledonian board to its shareholders in favour of the partnership with SAS, will the Leader of the House make arrangements for a statement to be made as soon as possible giving an assurance on behalf of the Government that there will be no ministerial interference with the Civil Aviation Authority to prevent the shareholders making a decision in the interests of a strong, second-force airline in Britain and competition for the consumer?

Mr. Wakeham: As I understand it, the Secretary of State for Transport has certain statutory duties in this matter that follow from any report that he should receive from the CAA. I do not believe that I can say anything else about this matter other than that I shall report the right hon. Gentleman's concern to my right hon. Friend.

Sir Philip Goodhart: As the Government expect to secure the Second Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill next week, can my right hon. Friend say whether he has any plans to take the Committee stage of part I of the Bill, dealing with the community charge, on the Floor of the House in view of the constitutional importance of the decision and the fact that many hon. Members will wish to discuss that matter in detail?

Mr. Wakeham: I have a feeling that we shall have plenty of time to discuss all the implications of the Bill. I have no plans to take any part of it on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Max Madden: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 429?
[That this House calls for the profits made by the House of Commons Refreshment Department, including the Kiosk, during the week 14th December to 18th December inclusive, to be donated to the Ethiopian Famine Appeal.]
It calls for the profits made by the Refreshment Department next week to be donated to the Ethiopian famine appeal. Does he agree that the vast majority of Members and visitors, who will be spending a large amount of money next week through the Refreshment Department, would welcome a proportion of that money going to that important appeal? Does he also agree that where there is a political will there is always a way? Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman use his best endeavours to cut through the red tape to ensure that starving people are helped by this House next week?

Mr. Wakeham: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern. However, the direction of excess funds from the Kiosk is generally a matter of the House of Commons Commission. The Government have made clear their concern about human rights in Ethiopia and the failure to provide agricultural incentives. In the present circumstances, the overriding need is to deliver food to those who face another major famine.

Mr. Roger Sims: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the annual report on Hong Kong is likely to come out next month. Will he arrange for an early debate on the report on the territory, preferably as soon as possible and before the publication in Hong Kong of

the White Paper proposals regarding representative government in the territory? Those proposals are due to be published in February and it would be helpful if we had a debate in the time between publication of the report and the White Paper.

Mr. Wakeham: That is certainly an important issue and I shall look at the possibilities for an early debate.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I refer to exchanges initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) yesterday which you, Mr. Speaker, said could be dealt with now. They concerned the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate, whose responsibilities are also covered by the Secretary of State in this House.
Is the Leader of the House aware that my hon. Friend asked about the background to the pre-dawn raid by Strathclyde police on executives of the BBC in February? In reply to those questions, first the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and then the Secretary of State for Scotland denied responsibility for answering my hon. Friend's supplementary question. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary said that my hon. Friend's question was
beyond my sphere of responsibility … and goes to the root of intelligence matters that are the responsibility of others." —[Official Report, 9 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 433.]
Can the Leader of the House say specifically to which others we should address our questions?

Mr. Wakeham: I think the best thing I can do is to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Minister quite properly took the view that the supplementary question concerning grounds for suspicion related to intelligence matters. If, however, the question was intended to relate to the grounds on which the original warrant had been granted, a reply could have been given. I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister has written to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who asked the question, and the confusion arose as a result of a late correction to his question by the hon. Gentleman as to the date of the seizure of the material.

Mr. Eric Forth: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is no provision next week for a debate on the formation of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Can he confirm that that omission was at the insistence of the Opposition? If he can., what conclusions does my right hon. Friend draw about the attitude of the Opposition to Scottish business? Is he as concerned as I am that the Scottish people are being denied important representation in this House because of the obstructive tactics of the Opposition? When will we have a debate on the formation of the Select Committee?

Mr. Wakeham: We will have a debate on it as soon as we come back from Christmas. I shall leave it to my lion. Friend to draw conclusions about these matters. I reiterate that the discussions took place through the usual channels, and it was generally agreed that it would be for the convenience of the House not to have a debate next week.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that Opposition Members are extremely anxious that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs should be set up? Without criticising the Committee of Selection, I may say that the motion tabled in the name of the Chairman of that Committee was not


really satisfactory in enabling the House to reach a satisfactory conclusion that would serve the interests of the whole House.
If there are to be strictures regarding the setting up of the Scottish Select Committee and the representation of Scotland in it, I refer the Leader of the House to the Committee considering the Health and Medicines Bill in which the absence of a Scottish Minister is to be deplored, particularly as the Opposition have two hon. Members of great expertise who wish to question the Government in Committee line by line and clause by clause on the operation of the Health Service in Scotland. Is it not a scandal that the Under-Secretary of State, who acknowledges the Adam Smith rule, is not willing to be seated on that Committee?

Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that the Ministers on that Committee will give a good account of themselves and will answer all the questions raised in the debates there. I cannot say anything further about that.
As for the hon. Gentleman's other question about the Scottish Select Committee, as I have said from the Dispatch Box on many occasions, I am anxious to set it up as soon as possible. If I have the hon. Gentleman's support in doing that, we may make some progress.

Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. Friend considers setting up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, will he bear in mind that some Conservative Members will welcome the opportunity to debate what was wrong with it and why it did not perform its duty satisfactorily in the way that the other Select Committees—I served on two of them—did?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend does not need any encouragement from me to find an opportunity of expressing his views on these matters. My concern is to try to get the Select Committee set up in a proper and acceptable manner.

Mr. Harold McCusker: At some time during the two-day debate on the Local Government Finance Bill, will the Leader of the House try to ensure that the House—in particular hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies — is told why the poll tax proposals will not extend to Northern Ireland? After all, if the poll tax is for the benefit of all the citizens of the United Kingdom, surely the citizens of Northern Ireland should have the advantage of it, too.

Mr. Wakeham: The issue of who is called in debates is not a matter for me; nor is that of whether these matters are in order. However, I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Michael Latham: Could my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary be asked to confirm to the House next week that the Goverment have not forgotten Mr. Terry Waite and other British hostages in the Lebanon, and that every diplomatic opportunity will be taken to bring pressure to bear on sovereign Governments—not terrorists—to bring about their release?

Mr. Wakeham: Of course, I am sure that the whole House wants and expects my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to do whatever is open to him to assist in this matter. I confirm that that is what he is doing.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Leader of the House perhaps find time in the early new year for a general debate on the issue of freedom of the press? No doubt he will agree that the growing rash of writs from the Attorney-General seeking to gag parts of the press and some people is most worrying. Will he bear in mind that it is often a free press that separates a democracy from a tyranny?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on those points, but I shall certainly bear them in mind.

Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most people in the free world strongly support the INF treaty recently concluded in Washington? Does he accept that the treaty has created expectations which, if combined with major defence cuts by the United States, could have a major impact on the defence of Britain? Is not that a reason for a special defence debate, over and above the ones that we can normally expect, early next year?

Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that other hon. Members would support my hon. Friend, but I do not see an early prospect of having such a debate. My hon. Friend may be able to find an opportunity on Wednesday to ask the Foreign Secretary a question about this.

Mr. John Garrett: In connection with the appointment next Wednesday of the Comptroller and Auditor General, has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 427 which is in my name and in the names of an increasing number of my hon. Friends?
[That this House considers that, as the Comptroller and Auditor General is an Officer of the House under the National Audit Act ( 1983 ) , appointments to the post should be made on a motion put down by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and that the appointment should not involve any consultation with the Prime Minister; and further considers that the requirement for the agreement of the Prime Minister to the appointment of an officer whose responsibility is to examine the financial management of the Government is constitutionally unacceptable.]
It draws attention to how unacceptable it is that the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General, now a servant of the House whose job it is to inquire into the financial management of the Government, should be subject to the approval, even the veto, of the Prime Minister. Will the right hon. Gentleman seek to table an amendment to the National Audit Act 1983 to establish that the appointment shall be made by the Public Accounts Committee and on a motion by its Chairman? Will the right hon. Gentleman hold up this appointment until such an amendment has been debated in the House?

Mr. Wakeham: No, I cannot agree to that. The procedure for the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General is laid down in section 1 of the National Audit Act 1983 and that procedure will be strictly followed. This is a matter for the House, but the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee has been consulted and I understand that he has given his approval to this appointment.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend consider delaying the Report stage of the Local Government Bill? Is he aware that this week about 50 of my right hon. and hon. Friends signed


an early-day motion critical of the way in which local authorities exercise their powers under the Race Relations Act 1976? Is he further aware that an amendment has been tabled today to repeal section 71 of that Act? In fairness to local authorities, they ought to know that there is a serious risk of that amendment receiving the approval of the House and they ought to have time to put forward their claims to continue to exercise what many Conservative Members regard as their pernicious powers.

Mr. Wakeham: A reasonable time has been allowed to deal with these matters. No doubt my hon. Friend will forcefully put his point of view in next week's debate.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the Leader of the House give the House time—if not now, certainly after the recess—to consider the matter of loan sharks and the credit problem, which has become a matter of public concern? Does he agree that the House ought to pay more attention to the problem of the exploitation of the most vulnerable sections of working people, many of whom are now at risk because of their indebtedness to loan sharks who demand gross rates of interest on loans?

Mr. Wakeham: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about any irregularities of that sort. I cannot promise him time for a debate in the immediate future, but he might try his hand at applying for an Adjournment debate and see how we get on.

Mr. James Kilfedder: In view of the allegation by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) that his is the only party in Northern Ireland that has no association with paramilitaries, will the Leader of the House find time before the House rises for a debate on paramilitaries? I and my party not only repudiate paramilitaries but unequivocally support the security forces and the rule of law. It is essential to put the record straight.

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend seems to have done that effectively, but I cannot promise time for a debate next week.

Mr. Greville Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman provide time for a debate on the safety of equipment provided to schoolchildren following upon the death of Billy Walker, my constituent, after swallowing the top of a Bic pen? The executives of the allegedly reputable company have yet again refused to discuss the matter privately. In the circumstances, perhaps the best remedy is to discuss the matter publicly so that the company's heartless and irresponsible behaviour can be held up to the scorn it deserves and so that, at the very least, the company's shareholders will know the way in which the company's executives have seen fit to misrun it.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. and learned Gentleman needs no lesson from me on how to raise matters that he rightly thinks are of concern to his constituents and to the whole country, but I suggest that an Adjournment debate may be a suitable starting point.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend seek to arrange for the Minister for Sport to come to the House to make a statement about the problems the British cricket team is encountering in Pakistan, and to make a comparison between that and the excellent umpiring and refereeing in this country, not least the excellent refereeing in the second round of the Football

Association cup last Sunday when Macclesfield Town football club, otherwise known as "the silkmen", demolished an official league club, Rotherham, by four goals to nil?

Mr. Wakeham: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his football team, and wish it well in future competitions.
All hon. Members will regret what has happened in recent events in Pakistan. Whatever the circumstances, there can be no excuse for flouting the authority of judges, referees or umpires. Such respect is fundamental to the playing of any sport. The enforcement of standards and the discipline of umpires are matters for the cricket authorities.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Leader of the House provide time before the Christmas recess for a statement or debate on the Government's attitude to their golden shareholding in Britoil? Does he accept that there is great concern among hon. Members about the future of the United Kingdom's largest independent oil company, about 1,700 Scottish jobs and about whether the Government had prior knowledge of the BP moves? Does he accept that the Government must make a political decision in the next few weeks and that hon. Members have the right to debate it?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman a statement, but I will certainly refer his question to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the amendment to early-day motion 226.
[That this House notes with acute concern the opposition of the honourable Member for Ealing North to the right of the Dawoodis Bohra Muslim Community to have a place of worship in Ealing, despite the support given by Labour and Conservative councillors following detailed consultation in the area,. further notes that following his campaign there has been an increase in racially motivated attacks in the area and that some behaviour at a public meeting has been offensive and came close to breaching the Public Order Act; and therefore calls upon the honourable Member for Ealing North to condemn such behaviour unreservedly and to support the right of freedom of worship.]
The motion points out that the Ealing council has mistakenly granted planning permission to the Dawoodis Bohra Sikhs to build a mosque on an industrial estate in Northolt, and seeks to persuade the council to find an alternative site for the mosque.
As the motion is signed by only 30 hon. Members and the amendment is signed by 70 hon. Members, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate for the sake of the people of Northolt who are deeply concerned, disturbed and angry about the matter?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend raises matters of concern to him and a number of his constituents, but they are matters for the local planning authority, the Ealing council. I cannot promise him that we can find time for a debate in the immediate future.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Will the Home Secretary make a statement next week on the relationship between Gibraltar and Britain on the landing rights agreement with the Spanish Government? We have not had a statement on the agreement, which raises many constitutional issues. For example, if the


Gibraltar Assembly were to veto the arrangement, what would happen to the agreement and the broader agreement on air fares in the EEC? The House and the people of Gibraltar deserve a full statement from the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Wakeham: That is an important matter and I will refer it to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the profound concern expressed about the future of the D notice committee? Is he aware that the voluntary D notice system has worked extremely well for many years and was working effectively between the BBC and the authorities until last week? Now that the Government's injunction has smashed to smithereens the reputation and effectiveness of the D notice committee would it not be right for the House to debate whether it should continue to be funded with taxpayers' money and kept going?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise a debate in the immediate future, but the Government attach great value to the D notice system and hope that the media will continue to participate.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that, if the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments decides to request a memorandum on the Welsh rate support grant orders on Tuesday, the orders will not be taken? I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree that there is little point in having a Select Committee to examine orders and report to the House if the orders are debated prior to that report.
When does the right hon. Gentleman expect the Register of Members' Interests to be published? Will it be published early in the new year? May we have a debate on the register because there have been a number of reports about hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), being employed by organisations such as Saatchi and Saatchi, which is lobbying for British Airways in the BA-BCal bid? We should be able to explore the ramifications of the way in which Conservative Members obtain financial advantage from their parliamentary endeavours.

Mr. Wakeham: I am sorry that this saga is changing its nature. All hon. Members have now completed an entry to the register and it was laid on Tuesday following a meeting of the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I understand that at the meeting the Committee agreed a short report which will be published early next week. A copy of the register, which is being printed as it stood on 8 December, is in the Library. The hon. Gentleman can study it at his leisure. I cannot answer the question about the Welsh rate support grant without looking into it, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the fundamental importance of the amendment tabled to the Local Government Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and his colleagues about the Race Relations Act 1976, and how that applies to local government, and as it strikes at the

foundations of the Bill, will he give additional time— perhaps until midnight—on Monday for the debate on the amendment?

Mr. Wakeham: Certainly we have given what I believe is a reasonable amount of time. We will waive the rule on Monday to enable discussion to take place. However, there is no fixed time limit as such.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House confirm that, as it is currently compiled, the Register of Members' Interests is based upon a system that was devised more than a decade ago? Although it would require hon. Members to show whether they have any interest in stonemasonry, they would not be expected to include any reference to show whether they were freemasons, including those who are honorary freemasons, some of whom may be on the Conservative Benches. Would it not be a good idea, when the Register is compiled next time round—it is apparently ready for publication now — that it should contain a part instructing Members of Parliament who were members of a freemasons' lodge to include that information in the Register, as is the case in many local authorities?

Mr. Wakeham: That is of course a matter primarily for the Select Committee on Members' Interests and ultimately for the House.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week to allow the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) to withdraw and apologise for his disgraceful attack on the Army colonel which was made under the cloak of parliamentary privilege and which has since been proved to have been false?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not believe that that is a matter for me. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) is responsible for what he says and he will have to decide how best to deal with these matters.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that I have issued a public statement today about the Queen's Dragoon Guard in which I said that, in view of the fact that the Ministry of Defence had found no evidence to substantiate the allegations, I withdraw unconditionally and apologise to the commanding officer and the regiment?
With regard to Lieutenant Colonel Macmillan, the complaint was not that he broke the regulations, as the MOD has implied. The complaint was that he fined a man £500 for having a very untidy room and another man £500 for refusing to stop his bicycle when asked and for being disorderly. I regard those fines as excessive. The charges and the fines were excessive. Nevertheless, I have said publicly that I regret naming Lieutenant Colonel Macmillan under parliamentary privilege before the allegations were checked.
There is far too much evidence not only of bullying, but of real brutality in the Army. I have made my apology in good faith, but that in no way detracts from my deep and profound concern about my evidence of bullying. I will pursue my campaign to try to eradicate bullying from the Army.

Mr. Wakeham: The whole House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that apology as he may have caused serious damage as a result of what he said previously. We much appreciate his apology. However, I


cannot accept what he said subsequently. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces have made the position quite clear. I do not believe that that coincides with what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Given that this is apparently a Government of law and order, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement as early as possible about the Post Office letter monopoly and its lack of enforcement in Coventry? Will he explain why the university, the district health authority and a number of businesses are clearly breaking the law by using a firm called Coventry Couriers which, at 10p a time, and with a frank very similar to that used by the Post Office, is delivering mail and breaking the monopoly in Coventry —or will it be like the Chancellor's wife this morning, with another blind eye being turned?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that if he has evidence of the law being broken there are proper ways to deal with it.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Notwithstanding the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to the leader of the Liberal party, will he consider urgently the possibility of an early debate on civil air transport policy so that the Secretary of State for Transport can explain fully to the House how the Government intend to facilitate transnational mergers within Europe, avoid quasi monopolies by big airlines and maximise competition for the benefit of the travelling public?

Mr. Wakeham: I fully recognise the importance of those issues. However, I cannot offer an early debate on the subject. I will keep the matter in mind.

Mr. Tony Marlow: As the Government have introduced the Local Government Bill as a means of extinguishing the scope for mischief-making by the race relations industrialists in local government, why is this democratic Government now emasculating its own handiwork by bringing forward new clause 5 on the instructions of a discredited quango—the Commission for Racial Equality—when it can just as readily, with this Bill, get rid of clause 71 of the totally discredited Race Relations Act 1976?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend's question is more pertinent to the debate next week than to business questions.

Mr. Alan Meale: Will the Leader of the House find ways, through the usual channels, to get the Secretary of State for Energy to issue a statement of concern about the sale of National Coal Board houses in Nottinghamshire? Currently 2,000 houses are up for sale and 3,501) ex-miners, most of whom are very old, need help and security. They fear for their future security in their homes. I do not believe that they should be made to wait by the coal board, which is refusing to sell to proper housing consortia which will look after them in their old age.

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot add anything to what I said on the subject a week or two ago.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Does the Leader of the House realise that his comments on the Scottish Select

Committee are disgraceful and completely unacceptable, indicating delay, dither and incompetence on the part of the usual channels? It is scarcely credible that the Labour party seems to be going along with it. What is the Leader of the House doing about Scottish Tory Back Benchers who are shirking their duty by refusing to serve on the Committee, and about ideas such as drafting in English Members when duly elected SNP Members who are willing to serve are deliberately excluded? When will this affront to Scotland be ended?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not consider it in any way an affront to Scotland that such matters must be considered properly and carefully. The Scottish Select Committee is an important matter. If we are to set up such a Committee which has the support of the House, we must make sure that we obtain agreement as widely as possibly throughout the House.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: In the light of today's decision by the five Law Lords, which will prevent journalists from investigating insider dealing and other important matters, will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the need to amend the Contempt of Court Act 1981? Does he agree that Mr. Jeremy Warner of The Independent should defy the Law Lords and not reveal his sources?

Mr. Wakeham: I certainly do not recommend anyone to break the law, but I have nothing else to say about the case in the House of Lords.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Leader of the House aware of the early-day motion that I am tabling today—[Interruption.] He may have had notice of it. It calls for Sir Clive Whitmore, chairman of the D notice committee, to convene a meeting of that committee, and to recommend the resignation of all lie members.
Does the Leader of the House understand that the work of the committee is now totally undermined? The committee is recommending one course of action, while the Attorney-General and the Treasury Solicitor are recommending completely different courses. As there is an inconsistency and a contradiction, why cannot the matter be wrapped up in the way that has been suggested?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. However, I can contain myself in patience until I see his early-day motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Ernie Ross: May I return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas)? Will the Leader of the House seek an early meeting with the Secretary of State for Social Services to see whether an Under-Secretary of State for Scotland can be a member of the Standing Committee on the Health and Medicines Bill? How can we possibly question the likely effects of the Bill on the Health Service in Scotland—as the right hon. Gentleman knows, health is dealt with separately in Scotland — unless someone with responsibility for it is on the Committee?

Mr. Wakeham: I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas).

Mr. Graham Allen: Does the Leader of the House accept that many hon. Members are


very concerned at the appointment of a new Comptroller and Auditor General? I do not intend to cast aspersions on any individual, but the appointment is of someone who has been very senior in defence procurement, and also has a Treasury background. Given the fight that hon. Members on both sides of the House have had to secure the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General, will he allow his right hon. and hon. Friends a free vote after next week's debate on the appointment, so that they can decide having heard the full facts, and without pressure from the usual channels?

Mr. Wakeham: When the hon. Gentleman has been here a bit longer, he will know that we do not talk about whipping matters from this Dispatch Box.
The new Comptroller and Auditor General is a deputy secretary in the Ministry of Defence and has wide experience of public expenditure both in the MoD and in the Northern Ireland Office. He is an eminently suitable person to be appointed, and his appointment will be the subject of next week's debate.

Mr. David Winnick: In view of the unsatisfactory replies that we are receiving from the Government over the acute crisis in the National Health Service, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in the spirit of Christmas, whether any arrangements are being made for copies of "A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens to be given to, every member of the Cabinet to read on Christmas day?

Mr. Wakeham: Instead of going on in the way that he does—I accept that it is in the spirit of Christmas—the hon. Gentleman should take heed of what I said to one of his hon. Friends the other day. If the hon. Gentleman looks at some of the figures published in The Guardian about spending on the National Health Service, I think that he will see that the record of the present Government is considerably better than that of the Government whom he supported.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Has the Leader of the House been informed that this morning the Act Now group, representing 40 organisations of or for disabled persons, has launched a campaign calling for the full implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act? In its main leaflet it asks why, given that Royal Assent was granted on 8 July 1986, nothing has happened 17 months later. What reply has the Leader of the House to that question —especially as he was Chief Whip at that time—and will he forgive disabled people for feeling cynical about the Government's inactivity?

Mr. Wakeham: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question, I did not know of this morning's announcement. However, I shall refer his question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Adjournment (Christmas)

Mr. Speaker: I remind hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Friday 18 December, up to eight hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning, and the result will be made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1979, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Act 1987.
2. Highland Region Harbours (Miscellaneous Powers) Order Confirmation Act 1987.
3. Lerwick Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1987.
4. Associated British Ports Act 1987.

Arms Control and Disarmament (Privileges and Immunities) Bill

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Mellor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is appropriate that we should be considering this Bill in what has been a very significant week for arms control, and for the development of East-West relations generally. As the House will be aware, the Bill was given its Second Reading on 22 October, and subsequently considered in Committee. The debate on 22 October and the Committee stage gave wide opportunities not only for discussion of the main provisions of the Bill, but for a wide-ranging review of arms control issues generally. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the Standing Committee for the insights and contributions that they made. I should particularly like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) for his exemplary and good-humoured chairmanship of the Committee.
I am sure that the House will not want me to cover the same ground as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in his speech on 22 October. However, it might be appropriate briefly to recapitulate the purposes of the Bill. I hope after that, if it is consistent with the rules of order, to say a few words about the historic agreement on the removal of the INF missiles signed in Washington on Tuesday, to explain both the main provisions of the Bill as they affect the United Kingdom and how it may be employed to give effect to the INF treaty.
As it now stands, the Bill is intended to give effect to the outcome of last year's Stockholm conference on confidence building and disarmament in Europe. The conference called for privileges and immunities to be extended to inspectors carrying out on-site verification, and to observers invited to military exercises notified under the terms of the Stockholm document—which is itself a major confidence-building measure between East and West. We believe that it is a significant and rather underrated development.
The United Kingdom's representatives have carried out one inspection in the German Democratic Republic this year and have observed 15 exercises since the document was signed. Eight of those observations were in Warsaw pact countries and seven in other NATO countries.
For the first time, we had an opportunity to play host to observers from Stockholm signatory states, including all the Warsaw pact countries except Romania, during Exercise Purple Warrior in Scotland last month. The observation programme passed off smoothly and attracted compliments from East and West observers on the efficiency with which it was organised and on the commitment to openness and transparency that it demonstrated.
The Bill provides for privileges and immunities to be conferred by Order in Council, to give effect to arrangements superseding the Stockholm document or to furthering arms control and disarmament generally—for example, the INF agreement, to which I shall return in a moment.
The purpose of extending the Bill by Order in Council is to ensure that, so far as possible, we avoid the need for primary legislation each time there is a new arms control

agreement. The verification arrangements of such agreements might involve the granting of privileges or immunities. I assure the House—I hope that I made this clear in Committee — that such extensions will be performed under the affirmative resolution procedure, which will give hon. Members a full opportunity to debate any order. I believe that that is a sensible way to proceed, and that it will reduce the administrative burden on the House.
A number of probing amendments were tabled in Committee, the effect of which would have been to limit the granting of privileges and immunities to the Stockholm document alone and require the introduction of fresh primary legislation every time that a new arms control agreement was implemented. I am pleased that, in the light of some discussions, sponsors of the amendments agreed to withdraw them. The fact that no further amendments were tabled on Report suggests that the framework that was set out in Committee is acceptable to the House. I am glad about that, as these issues should, so far as possible, not be the subject of partisan considerations but should command the confidence of everyone.
I should like to make one point clear. The Bill does not make any changes in the privileges and amenities that are given; they remain exactly as set out in the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964. All it does is extend for a very brief period the category of people who are entitled to enjoy those privileges and immunities. In practice, this will have little effect on people who are here for a very short visit and very limited in numbers. For instance, under the Stockholm document, inspectors—a maximum of four per inspection team — and observers — a maximum of two per country — will enjoy, among other things, inviolability of the person, immunity from criminal jurisdiction and, with some minor exceptions, immunity from civil and administrative jurisdictions. Those privileges are enjoyed by diplomats who are currently accredited here. Many of those observing exercises in the United Kingdom — this was the case with Purple Warrior—will be service attaches accredited here. Many of the small Stockholm signatory countries send no observers at all.
In the case of inspectors, the time limits are clearly specified in the Stockholm document, and no inspection may last for longer than 48 hours. It is envisaged that inspectors will bring auxiliary personnel, as the British inspection team did when it went to the German Democratic Republic in September. Auxiliary personnel are equated with administrative and technical staff at diplomatic missions in London and will enjoy inviolability of the person and immunity from criminal jurisdiction. Such immunities will be limited to acts performed in the course of their duties.
In Committee, questions were asked about the hypothetical extension of the Bill to a range of potential arms control agreemens. I assured the Committee., and I repeat my assurance to the House, that at present we envisage the extension of the Bill to only the INF agreement, in so far as it affects United Kingdom territory. We intend to avail ourselves of clause 1, which provides for its application to other arms control agreements, in this respect. I am unable to tell the House precisely when we shall do that, because much will depend on the timing of the Bill's remaining stages, and other matters relating to the ratification of the INF treaty, which we hope will occur in the new year. I hope that it will be completed in time


to allow an Order in Council to be tabled speedily. Indeed, we would want to table it before the treaty comes into force.
I said earlier that the INF agreement was signed on Tuesday after much painstaking negotiation and considerable difficulty. Despite the doubts of Left and Right, which were expressed at different times, the two super-powers have achieved what their negotiators have long had in their sights — the global elimination of United States' and Soviet longer and shorter range intermediate ground-based missiles.

Mr. George Robertson: While the Minister is on this subject, will he say when the INF treaty will be available to the House? Is the text available now? Has the Minister seen a copy of it, and will it be available in the Library?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Before the Minister deals with that point, may I say that I am sure that he will bear in mind that his remarks must be related to the content of the Bill. We cannot broaden the Third Reading debate into a general debate, or anything like as wide a debate as we had on Second Reading.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Without intending any discourtesy to the Minister, surely what my hon. Friend has asked for is highly relevant. The Bill confers privileges and immunities on Soviet inspectors who will be coming here in fulfilment of the provisions of the treaty. If we are conferring privileges and immunities on foreign inspectors coming to Britain, to the constituency of, among others, the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), surely we have a right to see the text of the treaty under which the Bill will confer privileges and immunities? Surely, therefore, it is highly relevant to this narrow Third Reading debate to ask to see the treaty?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I wanted to remind the House that the debate cannot be broadened to a general debate on the treaty; it must relate to what is in the Bill. I have heard nothing out of order yet, but I thought that it might be helpful to fire a warning shot.

Mr. Mellor: The principal treaty between the Soviet Union and the United States was signed on Tuesday. The basing country agreement between the United States and Britain regarding inspections on United Kingdom territory at the two areas where missiles are deployed will be signed tomorrow. Subsequently, a document between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union will have to be signed, whereby the Soviet Union will agree to abide by the arrangements that have been entered into, and that will not be done for some time. With regard to the first two documents, we shall make them available as soon as we have clean texts. We have copies of the text, but they are not in clean form.
We have been kept in touch with the drafting as it has gone on, and as I have explained to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), all the arrangements affecting the United Kingdom had to be cleared with us before they were accepted. A clean copy of the treaty in proper form will be deposited as soon as possible. —[Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hamilton finds this funny. It is typical of the hon. Gentleman to start carping on a day when all of us—

Mr. Robertson: Don't be rude.

Mr. Mellor: It is all very well the hon. Gentleman telling me not to be rude; it is like the kettle calling the pot black. This treaty should be a cause for rejoicing. We have no interest in keeping it a secret document, and when we have a proper copy of the text available from Washington it will be disclosed. At the moment, copies come in the form of diplomatic telegrams of a kind that we would not wish to deposit in the House of Commons. A proper copy will come very quickly, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no great secret that he needs to have uncovered.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mellor: In a moment.

Mr. Davies: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mellor: In a moment.

Mr. Davies: On the same point—

Mr. Mellor: In a moment. I have told the right hon. Gentleman that I shall give way when I choose and not when he stands at the Dispatch Box, in breach of the rules of order of the House, and shouts at me. I shall make my point and then, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, I shall give way—but not before.
As we intend to introduce an Order in Council that would permit inspectors diplomatic immunities and privileges under the Bill, pursuant to their work on the INF treaty, I shall give some details of the verification arrangements as they will affect the United Kingdom, if right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Front Bench will permit me to do so.

Mr. Davies: The hon. and learned Gentleman talks of verification arrangements. Will the note agreed between the United States and the United Kingdom set out the number of cruise missiles at Greenham Common and the number to be removed? The Minister will have seen the report in today's Independent, which seems to give the impression that there are more cruise missiles at Greenham Common than the Government knew about. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House the figures? Are there 24 launchers and 96 missiles, or 29 launchers and 101 missiles? How many missiles and launchers are there at Greenham Common and how many will be removed?

Mr. Mellor: That is well wide of the mark, and I shall not deal with that point. I think that I have the assent of the Chair in saying that. The Bill deals with privileges and immunities for inspections. There will be draw-down arrangements to provide for the missiles to be removed at a certain period. I am not here to answer Ministry of Defence questions about how many missiles there are. The right hon. Gentleman, who purports to be shadow Secretary of State for Defence, knows that that is a Ministry of Defence matter and not a Foreign Office matter.

Mr. Davies: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mellor: I shall not give way. The right hon. Gentleman can stand there till doomsday and I shall not give way. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, if he


wants that information, he must seek it in a proper way and not from a Foreign Office Minister speaking on a quite different matter.
The INF' treaty has proved that to negotiate from strength and maintain Alliance solidarity is the way to achieve arms control agreements. The agreement has established the principle of asymmetrical reductions —heavily asymmetrical, as it turns out—with the Soviet Union coming down from much higher levels. It will eliminate the threat of SS20s, SS 12s and SS22s to our cities and airfields. For the first time in the nuclear age, nuclear weapons will be reduced. The verification regime is the most stringent to be put in place by any arms control agreement so far and will set new standards for future agreements. The inclusion of on-site inspection represents a considerable breakthrough. If it is faithfully implemented, the agreement will help to build up the trust between East and West without which no lasting improvement in relations is possible.
I come to the verification regime, which we hope the House will permit to take place under the privileges and immunities set out in the Bill. How will the INF inspection regime affect the United Kingdom? The details of the inspection arrangements, which are the same for all the countries concerned, whether they are associated with United States or Soviet Union INF facilities, are set out in an inspection protocol appended to the principal treaty. As I said, tomorrow in Brussels the United Kingdom, along with other basing countries, will sign a basing country agreement with the United States. This will establish the practical procedures and provisions necessary to enable the United States to discharge its obligations under the treaty in respect of facilities not on United States territory.
Under the exchange of notes with the Soviet Union, which will be signed shortly after the basing country agreement, the United Kingdom will grant the Soviet Union the right to conduct inspections on United Kingdom territory. In return, the Soviet Union will undertake to comply with United Kingdom laws and procedures, thus establishing the triangular nature of the legal relationship which is crucial to the respect for United Kingdom sovereignty which we wish to maintain, as well as playing our full part in—

Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mellor: The right hon. Gentleman is being grotesquely discourteous. He is not even allowing me to finish my sentence.

Mr. Davies: It is a simple point.

Mr. Mellor: Any question that the right hon. Gentleman asks is likely to be simple, but that does not mean that I wish to give way to answer it.
The basing country agreement and the exchange of notes will guarantee the United Kingdom direct powers to ensure observance of United Kingdom laws and sovereignty, and any future changes in these arrangements that affect the United Kingdom will not be agreed by the United States without our prior approval.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mellor: Before I give way to the right hon. Gentleman, let me say this. Throughout the Second

Reading debate we were pestered to give details of the verification arrangements under the treaty. I was unable to give the House those details, for the perfectly straightforward reason that the treaty had not been concluded. Now that it has been concluded, and I am giving the details, we have these monkey-house noises from Opposition Members who have no desire to listen but who are interested only in making their own debating points gleaned from a 15-minute reading on the tube of the latest wild speculations in today's newspapers. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to reveal more of his morning reading, I shall give way to him.

Mr. Davies: I do not know why the Minister is being so tetchy. I was merely going to ask him whether the treaty or the basing agreement to be signed by Britain and the United States — I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman has seen the treaty—sets out the number of missiles and launchers at Greenham Common and therefore the number to be removed. Does the treaty say that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want to be difficult with the House, but it is my job to see that the rules are observed. I am sure that the Minister will bear in mind the scope of the Bill in answering the question that has been put to him. Mr. Mellor.

Mr. Mellor: Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The missiles at Greenham Common and Molesworth will be dealt with in the verification proposals in the treaty, so they are perfectly within the scope of this discussion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not the subject of the Bill. We had better get on with the debate.

Mr. Kaufman: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be better if the House left it to me to judge whether remarks are in order.

Mr. Kaufman: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However brief the debate may turn out to be, it is important for us to clarify at the outset the limits within which it can take place. As I said on an earlier point of order, the Bill confers diplomatic privileges and immunities on Soviet inspectors who are to come here. The Soviet inspectors will operate with the privileges and immunities conferred by the Bill, but under the terms of two documents, and it is impossible for us to debate the Bill adequately without discussing those documents, which the Minister alluded to but which are not available to the House. We are being asked to provide powers on which no satisfactory information is available.
One of the two documents to which the Minister referred is the inspection protocol. We are dealing with privileges and immunities to be conferred on inspectors. I do not begin to see how we can adequately debate a Bill under which we are to confer powers under an inspection protocol, not one word of which is available to this House. Furthermore, the Minister said that tomorrow the United Kingdom would be one of a number of countries signing a basing country agreement. That basing country agreement will affect the soil of this country. It will affect two constituencies. One is that of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and the other is the


constituency of the Chief Secretary. Yet we are asked to confer powers, as a Parliament, under a basing agreement—

Mr. Mellor: No, we are not.

Mr. Kaufman: Yes, we are. This is Parliament. We are asked to confer diplomatic privileges and immunities. It is Parliament that is doing this, not the Government. We are still a parliamentary democracy. We are being asked to do that, and those powers will be conferred under a basing country agreement. That is an agreement to which the Government are a direct signatory. Yet there again we do not know the agreement under which we are conferring the powers.
It seems to me that the debate ought not to proceed in this way, because we are being deprived of important material in which we are conferring powers.

Mr. Mellor: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Is it further to the point of order of the right hon. Member? If not, let me answer the right hon. Gentleman's point.
The right hon. Gentleman has really answered his own point, in the first part of his point of order, when he said that he conceded that this debate is comparatively narrow, in that it deals with the powers of the inspectors and the extension of those powers. Of course, it would be appropriate for passing reference to be made to the documents in the context of this debate, but it would not be in order for the details of the document to be debated on the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Kaufman: I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but your response highlights the problem. We cannot refer to the details of the documents, since no one on the Opposition Benches has seen a word of them.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The Minister will not even answer questions on them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that it would be better to let the Minister get on with his speech.

Mr. Mellor: If I may say to the right hon. Gentleman, I assume, having great respect for him, that this is a deliberate rather than an accidental misunderstanding of the situation. The point that he put to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is wholly erroneous. The Bill as drafted deals only with allowing inspectors and observers under the Stockholm arrangements the privileges and immunities confirmed by the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964. Any subsequent privileges and immunities to be granted will only be granted by permission of the House once an Order in Council has been laid and an affirmation resolution has been sought from the House.
If it be objected that the privileges and immunities sought in relation to the intermediate nuclear force treaty arrangements are wrong, the proper time to make that point is when the affirmative resolution is debated in the House.

Mr. Kaufman: rose—

Mr. Mellor: In just a moment.
Here one sees the error into which one falls if one tries to be accommodating in one's approach to debates in this

Chamber at the request of the Opposition. When initially we sought in Committee simply to deal with the Stockholm arrangements, on the proper basis that other future arms control agreements lay outside the immediate scope of the Bill and that parliamentary procedure was provided for that to be done, that was regarded as unhelpful, a bad spirit developed in the Committee and in the end we agreed, with the kind permission of the Chairman, to be allowed to discuss in little modules wider arms control matters within the context of the privileges and immunities that might in future be granted under this Bill.
In that same spirit, although the Bill as it passes into law will confer no rights or entitlements whatever on any inspector who might be appointed under a treaty that has yet to be ratified and will not come into force for a number of months, I thought that it would be helpful to the House to have an opportunity of setting out, since it would be our intention to use the Order in Council procedure provided for under this Bill in due time, so that inspectors might enjoy privileges and immunities when going about the business of the INF treaty inspection, to give details of the arrangements.
Instead, we find ourselves plunged into an even worse thicket, in which an attempt is made to suggest that we are now taking the debate forward without documents being available. This is the logic of the asylum, not of a parliamentary Chamber.

Mr. Kaufman: May I make it clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I do not criticise him for the way in which he has come equipped to the debate this afternoon. I think that he has been placed in an extremely unfortunate position because he has been asked to request the House to give a Third Reading to a Bill two days after one of the agreements which will trigger off the Order in Council procedure. Without in any way belittling the hon. and learned Gentleman— I have regard for him, as he knows — the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ought to have come here this afternoon in order to present to the country, on the first available occasion, his thoughts as Secretary of State on how this Bill will operate. I say that in no way belittling the hon. and learned Gentleman. This is a very important debate, despite either the length of the Bill or the length of the debate.

Mr. Mellor: I am grateful for the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman makes his point. I am happy to say that my right hon. and learned Friend has the same confidence in me that the right hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to express. Be that as it may, I want to assure the House that all the arrangements pursuant to the Stockholm agreement are in the public domain. That is the area in which privileges and immunities are directly conferred by the Bill as drafted. Any matters that need to be considered, that are novel in relation to the INF agreement, can be considered when the affirmative resolution procedures come to the House. In the interests of preparing the ground for that, I am happy, consistent with the rules of order, to give such information as I can about the nature of the inspection regime. I was beginning to do so when we were taken into the interesting highways and byways that we have been following for the past few minutes.
Going back to an earlier point, the INF treaty itself will provide for the draw-down over a three-year period of all


intermediate-range missiles, including those stationed at Greenham Common and Molesworth. Some six flights, consisting of 96 missiles, will be removed from Greenham and one flight consisting of 12 missiles from Molesworth. It is these two sites in the United Kingdom which will be liable to inspections, and these are the United States-operated facilities that I have already mentioned.
Under the terms of the treaty all the cruise missiles—I have given the numbers—will be eliminated within three years of the treaty coming into force.
There will be four types of inspection at Greenham Common and Molesworth. First of all, there will be a baseline inspection between 30 and 90 days of the treaty's entering into force, to verify the data exchange; secondly, there can be short-notice challenge inspections until missiles are eliminated, and inspections in the United Kingdom will be part of an annual quota of 20 such inspections in the three years of the elimination period; thirdly, close-out inspections, when all missiles have been eliminated; and, fourthly, continuing short-notice challenge inspections for 10 years after the end of the three-year period — in other words, extremely rigorous verification. It is, therefore, a period of 13 years altogether.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I understand from the details of the treaty which are published in The Daily Telegraph today that there is to be a special verification commission. Will that come within the remit of this Bill, and will its members be able to come to any of the Royal Air Force bases in the United Kingdom that may be involved if there were a dispute over the question of verification?

Mr. Mellor: As I understand the position—but I will write to my hon. Friend in more detail on this point—the purpose of the commission is to ensure that these arrangements are carried through smoothly, and all relevant assistance will be given to those who need to do that. Precise details of this, of course, and the arrangements under which they would come here remain to be worked out.
I should just like to make one point in relation to what I said about the flights at Molesworth. Contrary to what I said, it is 16 missiles at Molesworth, not 12.

Mr. Kaufman: As the hon. and learned Gentleman has had to correct himself, it would be helpful if, for the sake of clarity and for the information of the people in the country, he will tell us how many missiles will be removed from each site.

Mr. Mellor: I gave the figures and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, who either interrupts and ask questions or jibbers from a sedentary position, seems determined to be profoundly unhelpful. It is not a convincing performance. Ninety-six missiles will be removed from Greenham Common and 16 from Molesworth.
So far as the last category of short-notice inspections is concerned, there is an overall annual quota of 15 Soviet inspections for the first five years after elimination and 10 for the next five years. No more than 50 per cent. of the inspections can be made in any one basing country.
All inspections in the United Kingdom will begin with the arrival of a Soviet aircraft at RAF Greenham Common, and a maximum of 10 Soviet inspectors will be involved.
There are strict time limits. A single inspection could last for up to 90 hours from entry into the United Kingdom to departure, but most will be shorter than this. United Kingdom authorities will be informed immediately by the United States of Soviet requests for inspection. As little as one hour's notice will be given to clear a Soviet flight plan. How soon after this Soviet inspectors will arrive will depend on the point of their departure. United Kingdom and United States officials will jointly meet the aircraft carrying the Soviet inspection team and will form part of a permanent escort of Soviet inspectors during the period of inspection.
All inspection personnel will require United Kingdom visas. Inspectors will be drawn from a list approved in advance, about which the United Kingdom will be consulted. United Kingdom customs procedures will apply at the point of entry and British officials will then join their United States counterparts in examining equipment introduced for the purposes of inspections, to ensure that it is within the agreed limit.

Mr. Cohen: rose—

Mr. Mellor: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
While carrying out their inspection duties, the inspection personnel will be granted privileges and immunities. It is for this purpose that the Government will seek an Order in Council to apply the terms of the Bill to INF inspectors. These privileges and immunities will be consistent with, and in some respects more limited than, those granted by the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations of April 1964, and they will be set out in an annex to the basing country agreement, which will be made available to the House shortly, together with the INF treaty and protocols and the United Kingdom-Soviet exchange of notes.
Although the negotiations are behind us, we cannot, nor should we, put the INF agreement out of our minds. It must be ratified by the United States Senate. We Europeans must leave the United States Congress in no doubt about our support. It must be implemented and the verification provisions must be shown to work. We and he other European basing countries will be closely involved in this. This process will provide the backdrop to future arms control negotiations. We hope that this will cover 50 per cent. reductions in strategic weapons, eliminating the conventional imbalance and achieving a global ban on chemical weapons.
The Government hope that the INF agreement signals a sea change in the prospects for realistic, multilateral, verifiable disarmament. We shall play our part in ensuring that the opportunities offered by it are exploited to the full. Successful arms control can help to build trust and confidence between East and West. Verification of arms control arrangements through on-site inspection is a tangible piece of glasnost. The Bill will facilitate this and I have no hestitation in commending it warmly to the House in the hope that it will receive a speedy passage in the other place.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I apologise to the House because, if the debate goes beyond 6 pm, I shall be unable to remain for the closing stages. I have to take part in a public encounter with the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), during which we shall no doubt discuss the Bill.
I repeat, in the same spirit in which I made an earlier intervention, that it is wrong that the Foreign Secretary is not here to tell the House how the Bill will operate under the INF treaty. It is particularly offensive because he has distributed to every hon. Member a letter, via the Letter Board, in which he talks about making an early statement. This letter is the early statement. It is offensive to the House of Commons that the Foreign Secretary should write a circular letter to individual Members of Parliament, rather than stand at the Dispatch Box and answer questions across the Floor of the House, which is what parliamentary democracy is about.
The Minister has given us some details of the verification procedures under which the inspectors will be operating, under the privileges and immunities conferred by the Bill. It is a long-term piece of legislation, even under the first of the Orders in Council. Ten years plus three years makes 13 years, which will take us into the 21st century. If we get a strategic arms reduction treaty within the next few months, as all hon. Members hope, that will be taken further as the verification proceeds and as more inspectors are given the privileges and immunities under the Bill to carry out that verification.
We are not being provided with the information required to debate the Bill adequately. The Minister has told us how many missiles will be moved from Greenham Common and Molesworth. He has had to correct himself, although I do not blame him for that. On a matter such as this, the Minister must be briefed, and there was a mistake in the briefing which aroused some uncertainty about the accuracy of the material. Several newspapers —I have here The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph—make estimates about the number of missiles.
The Bill will be enacted by Parliament and will operate on our soil—that is particularly true in the cases of the two constituencies involved which are represented by Conservative Members — yet we were given the information about the number of missiles to be inspected under the scope of the Bill after the Soviet Union had been given the information. It is unacceptable that a foreign country, involved in a treaty to which we are not party, should be given information about how the Bill will work before the House of Commons, which is being asked to enact the measure, receives such information.
Until the Secretary of State for Defence told the House the other day, we did not know that there were missiles at Molesworth which will be inspected. The Soviet Union knew about that before the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, into whose constituency these missiles were surreptitiously slipped. It is not possible for the House properly to debate the Bill. As a Parliament, we are making a law and conferring powers on people from overseas who will be given privileges. It is totally unacceptable that we should be asked to debate a Bill without simple statistical material being given to Parliament before it is given to the Communist party of the Soviet Union.
Secondly, I say again, as I said on a point of order when I intervened in the Minister's speech, we are conferring privileges and immunities which will operate under the Bill. The Minister is mistaken in saying that they will operate under the order and that therefore we have no locus to debate that today, because the order-making power is made by clause 1(2) of the Bill. Until we pass the

Bill and until it is given Royal Assent, no order-making power will be available. That being so, for us to discuss what will happen under an order which the Minister has already said the Government intend to make under the Bill when it is enacted is germane to our discussion. Therefore, the Government should have postponed this debate for a few days so that we could have had the two key documents — the inspection protocol under the treaty, and the basing country agreement.
The Minister says that there is not a clean text, but there is a text of the treaty which contains, or has added to it, the protocol under which the Bill will be triggered. Before the Bill came before the House of Commons for Third Reading, the Government should at any rate have laid the inspection protocol before the House so that we might know under what terms the privileges and immunities will be conferred.
The Minister said that later this week the Government will sign the one document to which they are a party—the basing country agreement. I say again, these privileges and immunities are being conferred under the Bill in accordance with the basing country agreement, to which the Government will be a signatory. The Government must surely have that document in their possession. It must have gone through the Ministers' boxes and through the Prime Minister's box. I cannot imagine that such a major agreement would not have been thoroughly inspected throughout the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Prime Minister's Private Office and the Cabinet Office. I cannot imagine that it has not been available for weeks now. It may not have been available in final form, but the drafts must have been going through those various offices. It is unacceptable that we should confer on people from other countries powers to carry out inspections in constituencies represented by Members of the House without our being able to see the basing country agreement under which they will operate.

Mr. Mellor: I do not want to spoil the right hon. Gentleman's debating point. I simply say to him again that no power is provided in the Bill until an Order in Council is laid and until there is a debate in the House and an affirmative resolution is passed. By that time, all the documents will be available. I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman on one matter. It is right that at every material point the text, as it affects the United Kingdom, has been subject to the most scrupulous examination, but the idea that a clean, or even a substantial, copy of the treaty must be available for weeks is wide of the mark. The negotiators were working until the day before the treaty was signed and completed, and that is the basis upon which all this has been done. As I made clear in Committee, it was a race against time to finish it. When the clean text is available, it will be shown to the House. The right hon. Gentleman is sufficiently good at finding good points that he does not need to dwell on what I am afraid is a bad one.

Mr. Kaufman: It is a bad point only because the Minister misheard what I said. I was not talking about the treaty. Clearly the treaty has not gone through all those offices and been gone over in the way that I described—although I would have hoped that the Prime Minister might have had a peek at it before she entertained Mr. Gorbachev. I hope that she saw the treaty before she saw the lunch menu at Brize Norton.
I was referring not to the treaty but to the basing country agreement — the document to which either the Foreign Secretary or the Secretary of State for Defence, or possibly both, will append their signatures. That document must have been going through the Government machine for weeks. If it was not, the Government were damed irresponsible in not looking at it carefully since it relates to activities that will take place in Britain. That document, to which the Government are a party, should have come before the House of Commons and it should have been on the Table for us to see before the debate started.

Mr. Mellor: The right hon. Gentleman is not doing himself justice. How can we lay before the House a document that has not yet been signed? He suggests that the basing country agreement has an existence independent of the principal treaty. That is true only in part. Of course, the basic formulation—the content—does not relate — [Interruption.] May I have the right hon. Gentleman's attention? It is difficult for him to hear what I say and for me to say what I want to say if I am subject to constant interruption. The right hon. Gentleman, as I know well enough after four years at the Home Office, does not need that much briefing.
The basing country agreement is available and known in its bare form, but its contents follow the contents of the inspection protocol, which is part of the principal document. Therefore, the basing country agreement cannot he concluded before the principal agreement and its inspection protocol are completed. All those arrangements fall together.
I am saying this in order to be helpful. If the only consequence is to stir up further recriminations, I shall not trouble further. In the hope that the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about the reality, I can tell him that he will get the document at the earliest opportunity, and that can only be after it has been signed tomorrow.

Mr. Kaufman: It is not satisfactory that the House of Commons should see a document, which is not controversial, only after it has been signed. The House of Commons has been asked before now to give its assent to treaties. It is a peculiar proposition that only when the Government have signed something should the sovereign Parliament of Britain be allowed— [Interruption] —Parliament is sovereign—to have a glimpse of it.
I had better explain this clearly to the Minister. He talks as though the order to which he refers with regard to clause 1(2) is an entity, complete, entire and free-standing. It is not. It is a subordinate piece of legislation made under the Bill when it becomes an Act and which cannot be made until that time. Therefore, it is completely relevant for us to refer to the potential content of an order which can be made only when the Bill receives Royal Assent.
I say this to the Government, I say it to the Minister, and I wish that I could say it to the Foreign Secretary who, I repeat, should be here. The Opposition completely support the Bill. There is no problem about it going through the House and there is no problem about it going through the House of Lords when it has completed its stages here. On the other hand, in so far as we are referring to the order-making power under subsection (2) with regard to this week's INF agreement, the Bill will not be triggered until the United States Senate has ratified the treaty. That means that, although we are perfectly happy

to facilitate the Bill's passage, there is no tumbling hurry. The Bill could easily have been debated in the first week back after Christmas, when we would have had the relevant documents. As I said, the Government have seriously mishandled the matter. In addition, they have created a difficult position for the House of Commons.
I agree with the Minister when he praises the agreement. As I said on Second Reading, it is the most hopeful development for humankind since the atom bomb was exploded at Los Alamos in 1945. The Government are trying to dodge the implications of the agreement under which the Bill will operate. It is totally absurd for the Minister, and for the Foreign Secretary in his word-processed letter, to claim that somehow or other, what they call the twin-track approach is responsible for the treaty under which the Bill will be brought into action. The idea that the Russians are so terrified of 400 cruise missiles that they are ready to destroy 1,600 missiles gives us a very interesting sidelight on what the Government believe is the Russian inferiority complex. If the Russians have such an inferiority complex, I do not understand why the Government are so afraid of them. If the agreement under which the Bill is to operate were a tit-for-tat agreement, an agreement to destroy 400 for 400, or 1,600 for 1,600, the Government might have had some claim that the twin-track route had worked.
The agreement that will be policed in Britain under the Bill is a tribute to the good sense of the United States and the Soviet Union coming to a rational agreement that will benefit all. It has nothing to do with the Government allowing cruise missiles openly into Greenham Common and secretly into Molesworth. The Government had better get off the silly point—the only point on which they can hang their hat—of trying to pretend that somehow or other they had any role, except as a bystander, in an agreement under which the Bill will allow foreign observers and inspectors to come to Britain.
We are delighted that that is happening, but the fact that it is happening owes nothing whatsoever to the policies of the Government. Indeed, we all know that if the Prime Minister had had her way, she would have stopped the agreement coming into force.
We have been discussing properly the consequences for the implementation of the Bill of this week's INF agreement. The President of the United States and the General Secretary of the Communist party of the Soviet Union are this week in Washington — to our great satisfaction—continuing discussions which we all hope — and there seems to be a reasonable amount of optimism — will lead to a 50 per cent. reduction in strategic nuclear weapons—a giant step forward — in addition to the modest but epoch-making step forward which occurred this week.
Of course, the provisions of the Bill will stand to he implemented again if there is a START agreement, because the inspectors will be coming — with their privileges and immunities—under a separate and much wider arrangement. We have to consider the implications of a START agreement, in view of the fact that, under such an agreement, the Soviet inspectors will also be given the opportunity to come here. They cannot inspect Polaris, because Polaris is an independent British deterrent. We own the warheads and the missiles and we are capable of servicing them.
That will not be the case under the Trident agreement, because we will not own the Trident missiles. They will


come from a pool at King's Bay, Gerogia. There will be implications for inspection if the United States reduces the number of its Trident missiles in King's Bay, Georgia, because such an inspection will include the inspection of our missiles when they go back for servicing. Even though we will not be a party to the agreement, the missiles which we are leasing from the United States for seven to eight years will go back to the pool at King's Bay, Georgia.
If the Soviet Union and the United States come to an agreement under which those missiles are reduced by half —as we all pray they will—the missiles temporarily in the possession of the United Kingdom, as our independent nuclear deterrent, will be subject to inspection at King's Bay, Georgia, under powers parallel to those in the Bill. That demonstrates the total emptiness and hypocrisy of the Government when they claim that the successor to Polaris will be an independent deterrent. It will be part of the American deterrent, which we will be allowed to borrow temporarily at a cost of £10 billion to the British taxpayer, and which, of course, we will never be able to use independently, if there is ever the folly for it to be used at all.
The Prime Minister is obsessed with the possession of nuclear weapons when the Soviet Union and the United States sensibly acknowledge the destructiveness of possessing such weapons. She is now a unilateral nuclear armer when the Soviet Union and the United States are becoming nucler disarmers—and all praise to them.
Although the Bill and the powers conferred by it demonstrate that the Government are merely spectators of the marvellous process that is taking place in the world they are in no way activists, catalysts or assistants to it.

Mr. Mellor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: No. These are my last two sentences and it will spoil the flow of my speech.
Although the Government demonstrate that they are out of step and out of date, in terms of world processes, the Bill fits well into the policies that the Labour party will be advocating throughout this Parliament and at the next general election. That is why we wholeheartedly welcome it.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), for whom I have considerable respect, finds it so difficult to give more than a grudging welcome to the Bill, which is such a vital accompaniment to the INF treaty which marks the first reduction in nuclear weapons in the history of the world since 1945. Although it is a small Bill, in its own way it is extremely important. Since you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have allowed the debate to go a little wider than the Bill itself, perhaps you will allow me to go a little wider, to the extent of putting my remarks into a context for which I believe the Bill allows.
I wish to remind the House that on 18 June 1980 the then Secretary of State for Defence told the House that cruise missiles were to be deployed at RAF Greenham Common and RAF Molesworth as NATO's response to the Soviet Union's deployment of SS20 missiles, and to the threat that those arms posed to Western European security.
On 15 November 1983, the first cruise missiles arrived at Greenham. Throughout the four years that have elapsed since then, the Government, their defence policy and my constituents have been under almost continuous attack from the Opposition, from CND and from those women who describe themselves as Greenham peace women, who have had a squalid encampment at Greenham Common regardless of the nuisance that they knew they were causing to my constituents. Those three groups — the Opposition, CND and the Greenham peace women —have tried to inform the nation that they are the people who care about peace, disarmament and humanity.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Member a preamble, but he must now relate his remarks to the Bill.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I was about to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Those groups argued that we on these Benches and our American and NATO allies were the warmongers determined to maintain the arms race. Today, four years later, the Government have brought forward the Arms Control and Disarmament (Privileges and Immunities) Bill for its Third Reading.
The Third Reading comes at a fortunate time, because it means that the INF treaty, can be implemented as soon as it is ratified by the United States Senate and the Supreme Soviet, and that those who are to be authorised observers for the Soviet Union will have diplomatic immunity to enable them to discharge their duties. As a result of the Bill and the INF treaty, we in west Berkshire will no doubt be welcoming Russian personnel, as we have welcomed American service men, on the same basis as we accepted cruise missiles — to play our part in maintaining the peace and security of Europe.
As I understand it from the outline of the INF treaty printed in today's Daily Telegraph—nobody has suggested that that outline is inaccurate — under article 11 observers will be arriving at RAF Greenham Common and RAF Molesworth within 30 days, and not later than 90 days, after the treaty comes into force. The outline of the treaty in the Daily Telegraph states:
each party shall have the right to mount 20 inspections a year in the first three years, 15 in the next five and 10 in the last five.
Since the article also states that the right to inspect applies not only to Molesworth and Greenham Common, but to support facilities — and clearly effective verification must involve those facilities—can my hon. and learned Friend give any indication of how many establishments in the United Kingdom are likely to be involved? Will all those who come from the Soviet Union be accompanied wherever they go by RAF personnel?
The Bill refers to inspectors, observers and auxiliary personnel, all of whom will enjoy diplomatic privilege. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister seemed to suggest that that would not mean an increase in Soviet personnel in the United Kingdom who enjoy diplomatic immunity. Has the Soviet embassy stated whether it will want to increase its staff by the numbers suggested in the Stockholm agreement, or are all observers, inspectors and auxiliary personnel to be flown in and out to perform their verification duties without any long-term residence in the United Kingdom? Perhaps that last question is peripheral to the Bill.
Nobody will argue that effective verification is anything but essential to the INF agreement. The Bill shows that the


United Kingdom is willing to play a full part in that. It will involve Soviet inspections of INF missile deployment sites in the United Kingdom, and it underlines the fact that the Government are working in close consultation with the United States. The United States will be responsible to the Soviet Union for obligations in the treaty, but United Kingdom sovereignty and security will be fully respected through the agreements with the United States and the Soviet Union to which my hon. and learned Friend referred.
I said that the Bill was an essential accompaniment to the INF arms agreement. We all appreciate that that arms agreement is a good deal for NATO. We will lose missiles and launchers capable of delivering fewer than 400 warheads. The Soviet Union will surrender similar systems capable of delivering almost 1,600 warheads. We will accomplish more than we set out to accomplish when we demanded in 1979 that the Soviets withdraw their SS20s from Europe.
In addition, the Bill provides for effective verification, including, for the first time, on-site inspections in the Soviet Union. Because the INF treaty requires the elimination of an entire class of nuclear weapons, verification will he made easier. The treaty and the Bill vindicate the difficult decision to deploy intermediate range missiles taken by NATO in 1979. It will prove conclusively that strength, not appeasement, influences Soviet behaviour. As such, it should guide Western defence strategy and serve as a model for future arms negotiations. I commend the Bill and its intentions.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I welcome the Bill, as do hon. Members on both sides of the House. I thank the Minister for his co-operation. After the first session in Committee, at which we had to force information out of him by long speeches, he did co-operate and gave many details to the Committee about the various stages of negotiations as they were taking place. He gave the Committee and the House some worthwhile information.
The Bill is about privileges and immunities for Soviet inspectors who, will inspect INF missile sites on United Kingdom territory. You said earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker —I noted it down—that it would he all right to make a passing reference to the INF document. In my preamble I should like to make some reference to that document, which was signed in Washington by the United States and Soviet Union.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did say that, but the emphasis was very much on the word "passing".

Mr. Cohen: Yes, indeed.
The treaty is a welcome beginning. The Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence sent a joint letter to all hon. Members prior to this debate, obviously to influence the debate. In that letter they call the treaty a historic agreement because for the first time ever the number of nuclear weapons in the world will be reduced by treaty. We are not sure of the figures, but I believe that the world's stockpile of nuclear weapons will be reduced by between 3 and 7 per cent. That is a welcome start, but we have to move on to further reductions, not increases.
The Minister and the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) said that the agreement came from

strength. I do not believe that. The agreement came about for various reasons. One of those reasons was overkill. There is a vast number of nuclear weapons in the world. I believe that there are 60,000 with a capacity that greatly exceeds that of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. Another reason is the pressure applied by the peace movement and the Greenham peace women. They have applied continual pressure on Governments, to which they have had to respond. Another reason is the over-stretched and crumbling economy of the Soviet Union and the West. There is pressure on those economies mainly because of the burden of defence spending.
The joint letter from the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence says that the agreement
shows the possibility of negotiating an effective means of checking that neither party to an arms agreement is able to cheat.
That is right. Verification is about checking to ensure that there is no cheating. Therefore, I welcome the rigorous verification process. It is the most rigorous that we have yet seen in an international agreement. However, I should like to see more details about that process.
The Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence referred in their letter to cheating. It is important that neither the Soviet Union nor the West cheats on the agreement. As has been said, the Bill facilitates the INF agreement. Therefore, it was disturbing to see the Secretary of State for Defence at Monterey looking for ways around the treaty, for compensatory measures, and for what the Prime Minister calls modernisation, but which is really an increase in nuclear weaponry outside the INF agreement. Cheating is outside the spirit of the INF agreement.
The Secretary of State for Defence had meetings with his French counterpart to consider the Eurobomb. The Eurobomb would be a worrying development, and I hope that the Government will not go along with it.
The Secretaries of State were right to talk about cheating in the context of the Bill. I hope that the verification process, especially with the use of satellites and other high technology, will stop cheating. But cheating will stop if both sides approach the matter in the spirit that brought about the agreement in the first place.
The Minister mentioned the 96 missiles at Greenham Common and the 16 missiles at Molesworth. I understand that many missiles, particularly those at Molesworth, were installed only last week. They were rushed in so that they would be in place before the INF agreement was signed. That was wrong and a waste of money. I asked a question about the cost of Molesworth and Greenham to NATO and the British Government. The figure is £174 million. What a monstrous waste of money. Missiles have been at Greenham for only four years.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying wide of the Third Reading debate. He was addressing his remarks to inspections and inspectors" powers. He is straying from that matter now. He must refer to the Bill.

Mr. Cohen: The point that I want to make is that the missiles at Greenham and Molesworth, which are subject to verification and inspection by Soviet inspectors, will be in place for a maximum of another three years. I put it to the Minister that they should be taken out as soon as possible to prevent the waste of any more money. The Government are just throwing money down the drain.
I wished to raise a matter by way of intervention, but the Minister would not allow me to do so because he was concluding his remarks. He referred to the lists of inspectors, over which Her Majesty's Government will have a say. That remark raised a serious worry. Presumably, expulsions could take place. They have taken place in regard to other diplomatic lists. There is a tit-for-tat aspect, and it would be worrying if it arose out of the arrangements and applied to inspectors. If we expel some of the Soviet inspectors, and if the Soviets expel some of the United States inspectors, what will happen to the treaty and the verification arrangements? I realise that the matter is hypothetical, but it is not so outrageously hypothetical that that could not happen. It is appropriate for the Minister to respond to that point. I hope that such expulsions will not take place. President Reagan said "trust but verify". I hope that we can have trust and verification.
There was discussion in Committee about the need to ratify the treaty in the Senate. We pressed the Foreign Secretary to urge the Prime Minister to tell recalcitrant conservative Senators that they should ratify the treaty without delay. We have still not had a response from the Prime Minister. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will say how his discussions with the Prime Minister have gone on that matter. It is about time that we had a statement in clear, unequivocal language from the Prime Minister that she will not give conservative Senators a hostage to fortune and will say that the treaty should be ratified without delay.
Conservative Members cannot claim triumph for the treaty. It is a treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union. Any claims about triumph, particularly in respect of cruise missiles, sound hollow. Conservative Members are saying that they had put cruise missiles at Greenham Common and Molesworth. That is where the inspections will be held and to take them out and put them at, perhaps, Holy Loch if they are air-launched in order to get around the agreement does not sound like much of a triumph to me. It would have been a triumph if the Government had included British-owned nuclear weapons in the process. They could then have been subject to similar verification procedures. If the Trident system, which has a minimum of 512 warheads more than Polaris's 128, had been scrapped, or at least brought into the verification process, that would be a triumph.
I welcome the treaty and the verification process. It is important that the Government become involved in arms reduction and do not stand aside, as they have done, by not involving British-owned nuclear weapons. They must become part of the arms reduction process.

Mr. James Hill: Conservative Members have been amazed at the churlish way in which Opposition Members are reluctant to congratulate not only my hon. and learned Friend the Minister but also the Prime Minister on the significant role that she played in acting as a go-between for the two super-powers. It was only obvious that NATO consulted our own Peter Carrington and that the Prime Minister was kept fully informed at all levels by the Soviet side and the United States side.
The shadow Foreign Secretary was wrong on one point. He said that the treaty must be ratified by the Congress and by the Senate. It must also be ratified by the Supreme Soviet. Mr. Gorbachev himself is not so confident that he can get ratification just on the nod. He is making tremendous progress in his own country. He put forward a plan that could not be visualised even a year ago. He is moving carefully forward. The churlishness of Opposition Members could not reflect on his performance in his country. We must watch that we do not expect too much from Mr. Gorbachev. When he succeeds, we must be wholeheartedly behind him in what is the most difficult job any Russian General Secretary has ever had to do.
The Bill must act almost as a photocopy for other countries that have cruise and Pershing missiles on their soil. I refer, for example, to Holland, Germany and Italy. The more rational way to play the verification process is to make sure that the cruise and Pershing missiles that were flown in by the United States air force are flown to one central verification point. It is nonsense that there will be many verification points throughout Europe. At the moment we are concerned only with Europe. The missiles concerned are movable and adaptable to air freight transport.
I should have thought that, if only for simplicity and the maximum use of limited manpower, a verification team could be used at a verification centre. It emerged in Committee that inspectors and observers are not numerous and have not had much work to do. Even the verification staff of the Western European Union have not had a lot of work to do on the verification of stockpiles of weaponry. There must be some co-operation between the countries that have used cruise and Pershing, so that there can be a verification centre.
I am worried especially about the number of inspectors and observers who will be available. Up to now, we have been talking only about Russian inspectors and observers. We know from experience that they will be existing diplomatic staff from the various embassies throughout Europe. Indeed, they will probably have a dual role as members of the KGB and inspectors or observers. However, we do not know; that is one of the little problems that one encounters when dealing with the complete change of heart that Mr. Gorbachev has brought about.
Verification by human beings must be backed up substantially by verification by satellite. This is probably not the debate to raise this, but we have heard little or nothing about the percentages and performances of verification by satellite. That is important, because all the missiles in the verification process are extremely movable. At a moment's notice, they can be dispatched from one end of Europe to another. I am thinking especially about behind the iron curtain. In our future debates we need to know exactly how effective is satellite verification and the sort of processes that will be involved. We need to know about accuracy and the state of our existing satellites for high definition verification.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, that is not the subject of this debate.

Mr. Hill: I raised a query in Committee about verification by human beings, but I am not completely reassured. Although my hon. Friend had obviously done his best, the question that I asked is hypothetical. It


concerned the number of countries and the numbers of back-up staff to the inspectors and observers who would be involved in the verification process. Many people are afraid that hundreds of iron curtain warriors will tread the by-lanes of Newbury and Molesworth. I have also heard it said that they will sit at the gates with the peace women. I hope that that is not true, because I can see all sorts of national problems in that. Knowing the numbers of nuclear warheads that will have to be verified and dismantled — no-one has yet mentioned dismantling, although it is in the Bill—we need to know the number of people who will be required to carry out the inspection and dismantling process.
I have been conscious that, if one considers the problem as a quid pro quo, it would not work out. We are giving up 400 nuclear warheads, but it is a statement of fact that the USSR will give up about 1,600 warheads. We do not know whether the warheads that the Soviet Union is to give up are at the end of their life span. The SS20, for example, has been a major weapon in Eastern Europe for some considerable time. We do not know—although the figures are out of balance — whether the equivalent destruction values are approximately the same. It might be as well to know those things, as that would certainly hearten those who are a little in doubt, such as Opposition Members, who have been terribly nervous about it. They seem to think that the balance is wrong and that perhaps we should give up 1,600 nuclear weapons to balance those 1,600 SS20s.
The main thrust of the Bill does not go into great detail on what the INF agreement is about. We are told that that is in the Daily Telegraph and, apparently, The Independent has an extremely good article on it. I am pleased to see that the shadow Front Bench read the better press because that is another move to the middle ground. The Daily Telegraph has always been my favourite reading and I am pleased that it is also the favourite reading of the shadow Foreign Secretary.
At no time in Committee did we mention that we did not have a draft INF agreement before us. We did not go into the nitty-gritty. We considered the positive plan to give diplomatic immunity to those people who will have to verify. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister enjoys a tremendous reputation in Europe for being on top of his job, especially in this area. We have talked almost constantly about the Russians coming into the United Kingdom, but we could say the same about the Russians going into Holand, Germany or Italy.
However, what will be the diplomatic immunities for those who will have to go behind the iron curtain? I am thinking, for example, of the travel restrictions there. We do not have such restrictions in Europe. Inspectors and observers behind the iron curtain will be closeted all the time and we should consider that fact. I was going to say that they may be followed by men in large trilbies and long black leather overcoats. However, when I watched my television last night, I realised that they were all in Washington, so that danger does not exist.
We are too myopic when considering conditions for the inspectors and observers. I hope that many will be inspectors and observers from the Western European Union. I always boost that wonderful institution, which has been involved in the verification process for many years. I hope that we shall go further and find out exactly

what plans and immunities are being put forward to safeguard the inspectors and observers who come from western Europe.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: In Committee I had the pleasure of joining my hon. Friends in pressing the Minister on several points. Today is clearly the day on which, I hope, the Minister will gibe some concrete answers. Like all hon Members who have spoken, I welcome the treaty and therefore, this measure that follows directly from it—that we should have inspectors in this country to determine the fact that intermediate nuclear weapons will have left the country. As one of the people who believe that the peace movement contributed substantially to that process, I want to welcome it warmly.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he believes that the political climate has anything to do with building trust and confidence. I believe that it has and that the issue is not simply one of the technical measures before us.
Again, I press the Minister to tell us that the Government will make it clear to the country that there is no intention to circumvent the INF treaty by permitting or bringing in air-launched or sea-launched intermediate weapons to substitute for those which we are trying to get rid of as a result of the treaty.
How will it be possible for the inspectors and observers to verify that we are keeping the agreement? How will it be possible for them to know that there have been no secret flights of United States planes into United States-controlled bases in Britain carrying air-launched cruise missiles? The United States has repeatedly flown missiles and nuclear warheads into the country. That is why what the Secretary of State told us this week about the missiles at Molesworth was such a revelation. It is clear that this House has not been privy to that information.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to make it clear how the Soviet inspectors would be in a better position to verify that no substituting warheads had been brought into Britain, when the House of Commons has signally failed to discover that information in the past.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) referred to the right to inspect support facilities, and I trust that the Minister will be specific about that. I am aware that, at times, there has been controversy about the use of RAF Welford and RAF Alconbury in connection with the storage of warheads for cruise missiles and the movement of convoys from the main bases of Greenham and Molesworth to those locations. If confidence and trust is to be built up, it must be clear to the Soviets that missiles have not been taken out of the main bases and put somewhere else.
The Minister said that the agreement was triangular, but I find that difficult to accept. I believe that, given what has been said by representatives of Her Majesty's Government, they have not welcomed the moves that ultimately led to the INF treaty. That treaty has been negotiated between the Soviet Union and the United States. We are all aware that the Prime Minister went to Washington to urge the President not to make a deal with Mr. Gorbachev. That will not be forgotten by the House or the British people.

Mr. Mellor: I am sorry to intrude upon fantasy land —to do so is probably a pointless operation— hut the hon. Lady has only to look at the document that I read


out in Committee — the communique regarding the Prime Minister's meeting last November with President Reagan, in which the two leaders committed themselves to an INF agreement—to see that what she has just said is nonsense.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not for me to say whether we are in fantasy land, but we are in great danger of going beyond the rules of order.

Mr. Mellor: Saved by the bell.

Ms. Ruddock: Not at all: I stand by the point that I made.
Subsequent to that communique, the Prime Minister has said that there has been enough nuclear disarmament. That is clearly contrary to the views of the President of the United States and the General Secretary—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is now going very wide of the Bill. We are on Third Reading. I realise that the hon. Lady has not been here long, but on Third Reading it is in order to refer only to what is in the Bill.

Ms. Ruddock: I am learning fast. I was trying to respond to the points made by the Minister, but let me conclude my questions.
The Minister has referred to the granting of visas to the Soviet inspectors, and he gave a clear indication that it would be possible for Britain—indeed, that would be correct — to refuse permission for any particular individual to enter this country. Under the agreement that is yet to be signed—the basing country agreement—will the United Kingdom retain any right to veto a Soviet inspection per se? Will the issue of the timing of inspections, the numbers and so on entirely rest on agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union? Are there any specific arrangements by which Britain will contribute inspectors to visit the Soviet Union under the terms of the agreement that has been reached?

Mr. John Browne: I support the Bill because I believe that it is a testimony to the policies of this Government, the United States Government and the Governments of our NATO allies. That policy is the prudent pursuit of multilateral and verifiable disarmament. There were many reasons for entering into negotiations, but when one considers the international situation that prevailed in 1984, one realises that one of the prime reasons was that the NATO Alliance was not prepared to be browbeaten. NATO intended to match weapon increases with weapon increases. It did not intend to be bullied and would negotiate only from a position of strength. I believe that, without the deployment of cruise and Pershing missiles, and without the mere threat of the American strategic defence initiative, it is unlikely that the Soviet Union would have negotiated on a serious basis about serious disarmament.
The Prime Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and my hon. and learned Friend deserve credit. I do not believe that it gets us anywhere when the Opposition refuse to give such credit.
We are about to enter a tremendous era of disarmament, and things that were undreamed of a year or two ago are now before us. We have been given a

chance, and it is wrong for people to decry the tremendous efforts that have been made by the Western Governments. Our Government were a key element in the negotiations, and I wonder how far the United States would have gone to reach such an agreement if Britain had disagreed with such negotiations taking place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is coming to the end of his preamble and will now address his remarks to the Bill.

Mr. Browne: I especially support this treaty because I believe that it heralds a new epoch—the first nuclear disarmament in history. Although the INF treaty does not have great significance for the military balance, it is a trend setter. However, one bad trend may be over-expectation.
A key point in prudent, multilateral, verifiable disarmament is trust. The key elements of that trust are verification and integrated, balanced agreement. Obviously we must not consider that nuclear balance or nuclear disarmament is a good thing if there is a massive imbalance in conventional, biochemical and space weapons. All disarmament must be considered integrated, multilateral and verifiable.
The Bill covers four main elements of verification. Many of the INF weapons are mobile—this is especially true of the Soviet weapons—and it is vital to have on-site inspection. We cannot rely exclusively on space-based surveillance. I also approve of the short notice challenge system. If we are to have on-site inspection, it is vital that we give diplomatic privileges to the personnel in those inspction teams.
It is understandable—I know that it comes in a trend —that because of terrorist actions in London and other countries we are trying to cut back on diplomatic privilege for one reason or another. I also support that. This is an extenuating circumstance, and we should think constructively of extending privileges for these inspctors. They need protection, and they also need to be afforded efficient passage. Life in the Soviet Union is very different from life in western Europe, and the ability of people to move about freely is a different concept. We must strive to make sure that the privileges that we grant by passing the Bill—I hope that it will be passed tonight—are reciprocated by the other side, not only in writing, but in real intent and practice. Our inspectors should be afforded the same ease of movement as we afford to people from the Soviet Union while they are in the United Kingdom.
I agree with the need for site verification, but what about out of sight on-ground verification? With regard to diplomatic privileges afforded to Soviet teams coming here to places such as Greenham Common, which is close to my constituency, will Soviet teams come to what would have been considered possible launch sites, and even the routes to launch sites, of cruise missiles in the Winchester and Alton area? Likewise, will we be afforded those privileges —if they are granted—on the other side? Will the on-site inspections be restricted to the base, or will we be allowed to look at possible launch sites and routes to them?
Another key element of verification—the third—is dismantling. The breakdown and disposal of the missiles is the key to the verification process — especially dismantling. Where and how will they dispose of all those materials? It is paramount that our inspection teams are afforded full access to ensure that that is properly done.


It is no use looking at empty sites if the missiles, or even the missile material, are available either for immediate deployment or quick assembly in other areas to which the inspection teams do not have right of access. Dismantling is a key element that I would like my hon. and learned Friend to cover this evening.
The fourth key element that I want to discuss is that of intent. One must build up verification. One cannot see everything in the world, especially when looking at missiles such as these. Intent is important. We see the Soviet Union agreeing to the treaty, but at the same time we see it modernising its military forces — fewer troops, more high-tech forces—and moving from labour-intensive to capital-intensive armed forces. And this is at a time when the United States appears to be over-extended, not only in diplomatic terms of granting visas, but in budget terms. If there are cuts in the United States budget deficit, they may well end up as defence cuts in American deployments to western Europe. I find that worrying, because I see a possible imbalance under the INF treaty, which throws even more weight on the verification, which must be extended to looking at Soviet intent. Obviously my hon. and learned Friend cannot comment on that this evening, but I hope that he will take the point on board.
I fully support the Bill and the measures outlined in it. It is a short Bill, but vitally important. It will be relatively easy to explain to our constituents the fact that Soviet personnel will be landing here. That is a strange, but not a bad, thing. Indeed, it is a good thing, because the era that it unfolds is one of genuine nuclear disarmament—the beginnings, the first steps. I am all for that. I want to emphasise to my hon. and learned Friend that I hope the reciprocal arrangements made on the other side will be not only in black and white on paper but in reality. Given the different type of environment and the huge expanses of some of the areas in the Soviet Union, I hope that we will have a matched verification ability, which will be the key ingredient in the whole matched INF agreement, which I entirely support.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The Bill is designed to implement the Stockholm agreement to build up confidence measures between the United States and the Soviet Union. For that purpose, privileges and immunities are being conferred on inspectors. However, the House tonight — not unnaturally — is concentrating on clause 1(2), under which, under an Order in Council approved by the House through the affirmative procedure, the immunities and privileges can be extended. Quite rightly, the House is looking forward to dealing with those orders to implement the INF treaty, which has been brought about by the bold and courageous leadership of Mr. Gorbachev. I hope that the Minister does not want to disagree with that, because the Prime Minister, who used those words when she met Mr. Gorbachev during refuelling at Brize Norton, would sack him if he did. Therefore, we must recognise that we will be concentrating on clause 1(2). It is right that that should be so: it is an important step forward.
I do not think the Prime Minister can claim much credit, as she has gained an international reputation as a defender of nuclear weapons. She may have had a couple of telephone calls from someone in NATO — such as Peter Carrington—or from someone else, to tell her how the negotiations were going, but she can claim no credit

for this INF agreement. The Minister is muttering from a sedentary position. In his winding-up speech he can tell us to what degree the Prime Minister has been involved. How many telephone calls has she had? How many discussions in the negotiations has she had? Of course the Minister cannot answer that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not invite the Minister to do that, because, were he to be tempted along that road, he would be out of order.

Mr. Cryer: I said what I said in passing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the Minister is muttering under his breath the whole time. I feel constrained under that sort of provocation to make some sort of comment on the rubbish that the Minister is muttering under his breath; but I take your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall resolutely ignore the tortuous nonsense that seems to be pouring from the Minister's lips in his sedentary position.
As regards clause 1(2) and the INF treaty with which we are primarily concerned, there should not be any cheating in the application of the treaty, because we are anxious to deal with the affirmative resolution under clause 1(2), and if there were any cheating, that clause would not be brought into operation. There have been suggestions that there might be a development of air or sea-launched cruise missiles to make up for the 112 missiles that the Minister claims would be removed under the treaty from Greenham Common and Molesworth. The Prime Minister has not made a clear statement about the position of air and sea-launched cruise missiles and their possible adoption to cheat on the INF agreement.
I am desperate to see another order under clause 1(2) of the Bill come before the House. As the order under the Bill is brought before the House and given its affirmative passage and the missiles are dismantled, under the verification procedures set out in the Bill and because of the immunities and privileges conferred on the inspectors, what will happen to Molesworth and Greenham Common? Will they be used for a productive use, such as growing wheat for Ethiopia? The Minister laughs, but the then Secretary of State for Defence went to Molesworth with 2,000 police officers and more troops than stormed Goose Green to evict 16 peace people because they were growing wheat for Ethiopia. I do not want to go along that path, but I say that by way of explanation.
As the verification procedures are carried out and the missiles are sent packing back to the United States, where they belong, what sort of positive development will take place at Greenham Common and Molesworth? For example, will there be consultation with the Greenham Common peace women who, for many years, have stayed there against the sneers and taunts of the pin-striped hooligans who dominate the Conservative party? Those women went there and said that they would stay until the cruise missiles had gone. They have been proved right. The House is providing in legislation the verification mechanism that will carry out the belief that the Greenham Common women had when they went: many years ago to set up camp outside the Greenham Common gates. Despite all the dodges and harassment by the police and Army and the legislative dodges produced by the Government, those women have stuck to their task, and credit is due to them.
I look forward to the time when we have an order under clause 1(2) for verification procedures that will allow


inspectors to come to Britain to check that we have got rid of Trident. The Minister mutters sedentary nonsense about the Prime Minister not being a warmonger. Perhaps he will tell us why we are keeping Trident when we are all supposed to be pleased that nuclear weapons are to be eliminated. I offer an opportunity to the Minister. If he believes in market forces, why does he not apply market forces to Trident? If he did, we would use all the more rapidly the legislation in the Bill.
Why does the Minister not put Trident out to flag-day collections and use the £11 billion for something more useful? If the market will not give him the money, we could establish verification procedures under orders under the Bill. People could then come to Britain and see that we had got rid of Trident and were joining the 121 non-nuclear nations that have signed the United Nations nonproliferation treaty renouncing nuclear weapons. If we did that, we would be joining the majority of the world's nations, and that is an important development for which the legislation provides.
Quite properly, the House is dealing at some length with the intermediate nuclear force provisions under clause 1(2) of the Bill. It is a small first step, but it is welcome in all parts of the House. However, it represents only an 8 per cent. reduction in the total number of nuclear warheads that are available to exterminate civilization— [Interruption.] The Minister mutters that it is 3 per cent. Various newspapers have suggested that the number of warheads is larger than was at first thought because there has been a certain amount of deception about the number of warheads in this category that have been deployed. That would not be surprising, because time and again the Ministry of Defence has deceived the House about the number of operational United States bases in Britain. If there has been a sleight of hand, an economy with the truth, over the number of missiles, that would not be startling. Even if it is only the 3 per cent. that the Minister claims and not the 8 per cent. that some newspapers claim, it is at least a step in the right direction and is welcomed by everybody.

Mr. Hill: It is a giant step for mankind.

Mr. Cryer: It is not a giant step; it is a modest step brought about in large measure by the bold and courageous leadership of Mr. Gorbachev. The Prime Minister said that at Brize Norton. We must not argue about negotiations from strength, of which the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) spoke. He said that by keeping our nuclear weapons we forced the Soviet Union to the negotiating table. That is a peculiar argument and does not comply with the information provided by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in a letter sent to all hon. Members. It sent a letter instead of sending a Minister to the House to make a statement, as any democratic Minister should do. The letter says:
under this INF Treaty the Soviet Union will be giving up some 1,500 deployed nuclear warheads, nearly four times as many as the United States, removing the enormous Soviet advantage in this category of weapon".
Therefore, we have negotiated not from strength but from weakness.
In the negotiations we have achieved a success that has brought about an INF treaty with the Soviet Union, which has an enormous advantage in the number of warheads.

That shows that there can be successful negotiations from weakness which will lead to the removal of a far greater number of nuclear weapons from the other side.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to advance the argument that, if we had had no intermediate nuclear weapons, the SS20s would have been withdrawn anyway? Surely he does not mean that. He must accept my argument that, because NATO showed itself willing to deploy weapons of an equivalent type, the Soviet Union recognised that it would not be able to get away with nuclear superiority and that there was no point in pursuing that approach. The Soviet Union recognised that it would be better to remove its weapons if we removed ours.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) will come back to the Bill.

Mr. Cryer: I should like to say something by way of explanation before I come to clause 1(2), which is the important part of the Bill. I say to the hon. Member for Newbury that the Soviet Union has always faced technological innovation by the West. It has been catching up all the time, but it has not had an overall nuclear weapons superiority. That is the sort of propaganda put about by NATO and the Ministry of Defence in order to justify their own position.
We shall never produce more orders under clause 1(2) for further verification inspection arrangements if we argue that we can only negotiate from strength. That is the essence of the arms race, in which each side says that it has to be stronger than the other or it will not be able to negotiate. How can we look in the eye the 121 non-nuclear nations that signed the United Nations non-proliferation treaty and tell them that they cannot have nuclear weapons, that having them is very foolish and we do not want to proliferate, if that is what we are doing?
It is important for us to start the procedure for dismantling Trident, and the Government should bring before the House an order under clause 1(2) by way of the affirmative procedure, for which the Bill provides, and say to the Soviet Union that we are joining it in demonstrating our emphasis on the need to get rid of nuclear weapons. We should say that we recognise the importance not of our peripheral nuclear weapons, but of the stockpiles held by the United States and the Soviet Union.
That is really why the INF treaty has been brought about. It is in place not because of the increase in the deployment of cruise missiles, but because the Soviet Union has recognised that it was the only way to end the arms race. It recognised the possible use of nuclear weapons either by accident or by design. Thank goodness the Soviet Union took the initiative of a test ban for 18 months and other important initiatives that have been met from time to time by the President of the United States. That is all to the good.
The major initiatives for the agreement came from the Soviet Union, because it recognised that at the end of the arms race there is a great danger that one or more weapons will be used by accident or design. That is why the peace movement poured out in its millions throughout Europe to demonstrate the fear that the end of the arms race would result in nuclear annihilation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is doing his utmost to link his remarks to clause 1(2), but the link is now getting very thin.

Mr. Cryer: I shall bring my remarks back to a solid base. I had intended to take only a few minutes, but Conservative Members have been muttering under their breath at me. As you will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this acts as a provocation and I have had to defend myself against the pin-striped nuclear fanatics on the Conservative Benches—

Mr. Churchill: The voice of appeasement.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Member for Stretford, who has taken his carpetbag and shifted elsewhere so that he can keep his seat, says that the Bill is the voice of appeasement. The verification inspection arrangements in clause 1(2) have been welcomed by Conservative Members, yet the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) has strolled into the Chamber and said that it represents appeasement, because he is fundamentally opposed to any sort of properly negotiated treaty, and the provisions of clause 1(2).

Mr. Churchill: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should be so misinformed. I represent the same constituents as I have represented for the past 17 years, although the name of my constituency has changed, through no choice of mine. I have been in strong support of the verification provisions of the agreement. It has been solely thanks to the strong policies adopted by NATO and the Government that the agreement has been achieved, and no thanks to the policies of appeasement of the Labour party.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence in allowing me to say that the hon. Member for Davyhulme has wandered in at the close of the debate and slings out a word such as "appeasement", when he has no knowledge of what has gone on. I am pleased that he supports the legislation. I do not apply the term "appeasement" to this legislation. The Stockholm agreement on building confidence measures, at which the Bill is aimed, and the INF treaty, signed by Mr. Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev, are very important steps. If we are to invoke clause 1(2) to provide verification and inspection orders through the affirmative procedures of the Bill—the hon. Gentleman would not be familiar with that, but that is what the Bill contains—we must contribute to measures for peace by getting rid of Trident nuclear weapons, which represent an escalation in nuclear weaponry and are in breach of the solemn United Nations non-proliferation treaty that we have signed.
The Bill is a small but valuable step in the preservation of civilisation on our planet. It is recognised as an important step by the United States and the Soviet Union, but the steps must become larger if we are to get rid of the threat of a nuclear holocaust.

Sir John Farr: I hope that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) will forgive me if I do not follow him too closely. In his period of enforced absence, the hon. Gentleman's politics has not improved; now his remarks are even more extreme. He fails to recognise that the joint nuclear deterrent of East and West has kept world peace since the last war. The unique understanding between our Prime Minister and Mr.

Gorbachev, which his leader could never have attained with Mr. Gorbachev has resulted in Mr. Gorbachev coming to Britain to see our Prime Minister and consult her before going to Washington to sign the historic intermediate nuclear forces agreement.
The Conservative Government, NATO and the West have been determined that at all times we should be armed and able to resist nuclear blackmail. That has resulted in the Russians being brought to the negotiating table, and 8 per cent. of the world's nuclear missiles have been negotiated away. The Government and the Prime Minister have every reason to congratulate themselves.
I refer to the verification provisions in clause 1(2). Much has been said about the welcome visitors who will come from behind the iron curtain to verify the removal and complete disestablishment of the nuclear missiles at Greenham Common and Molesworth. Have the Government given any thought to the extent to which the verification could take place by satellite? I understand that the missiles will be deactivated, which is quite a sophisticated job and will be carried out under the supervision of Soviet observers.
It may be possible that agreed sites in Britain, Europe or Russia could be deactivated and slit lengthwise, with all the nuclear fissionable material removed completely, but the equipment left there so that a spy satellite could check on it. Photography by spy satellites is so exact that it could check that the missiles not only are made ineffective under the inspection of the official visitors, but will remain ineffective for all time, hopefully as a rusting monument to the success of the negotiations.
I ask the Minister to tell the House, perhaps through the Order in Council, the number of persons who will be involved in verification. In this period of glasnost, when our relations with the Russians are very good, they would not be likely to send unpleasant people here under the cover of inspectors, but we must have some scrutiny by the team of visitors.
The Long Title of the Bill states that the visitors will be "observers or inspectors, and auxiliary personnel". We do not want to limit the number—other hon. Members and I believe that the more who come and the sooner they come, the better. Will the Minister tell us what the categories in the Long Title mean —although I suppose "observers" is obvious. Will he also tell us how many visitors will come and how long they will stay in Britain? I presume that they will visit the sites in Molesworth and Greenham Common. Will they stay here until the missiles are completely deactivated and rendered useless? Will they be accredited to the Russian embassy as part of the normal Russian detachment? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us what is going to happen.
It is only two days since this wonderful treaty was signed. It would be helpful to know whether the observers who arrive for the purposes of verification will be officially accredited to the Russian embassy and whether they will reside there. Presumably the accredited number will swell while they are in this country, and when their welcome task is finished they will leave.
The Bill mentions the Orders in Council that are to be published. Has any date been set for the publication of these necessary and welcome orders? I understand that the usual process is that Orders in Council are debated and approved by the House. Is that likely to happen in January? If so, I would be grateful if my hon. Friend could tell us whether the Orders in Council will be produced in


time for us to consider them before Christmas so that we can be ready for the debate early in the new year. It is a remarkable coincidence that we are debating the Bill today. Indeed, we could almost pay tribute to the party machine for that. It is a remarkable coincidence that we are debating the Bill at a time of international rejoicing, and I congratulate all concerned.

Mr. Denzil Davies: A number of questions have been raised in the debate and no doubt the Minister will endeavour to reply to them. I have a few questions to ask. The Minister mentioned the treaty. He will understand that it is a voluminous document, containing 31 pages of treaty and 100 pages of what is described as a "memorandum of understanding" or an appendix. I am not sure whether the Minister said that a copy of the treaty would be deposited in the Library. I hope that he will make clear which documents will be deposited in the Library, preferably before the Order in Council is brought before the House.
Will a copy of the treaty be deposited? Will the 100 pages of appendix which I understand contain a certain amount of United States classified information—which will be available to the United States Senate — be deposited? The Minister referred to various other documents, including an agreement between us and the United States, which I understand is called a "basing" document — although I am not sure what that will include—and a exchange of notes between us and the Soviet Union. Which of those documents will be deposited in the Library so that they can be examined before the debate in the House on the Order in Council that will give effect to the verification procedures in respect of the INF treaty?
Questions were raised about the destruction of missiles and warheads. I understand that that destruction will not take place in Britain. Presumably that will happen in the United States. The warheads will be placed on aeroplanes and flown out just as they were flown in; the rockets will also be flown out. Will the Minister confirm that there will be no physical destruction in Britain? As this is within his knowledge, despite the fact that it will happen in the United States, will he confirm that the nuclear material in the warheads, both Russian and American, can be freely used for other nuclear weapons? As I understand it, the treaty does not provide for total disposal of the nuclear material. The material will be available to be used in other nuclear weapons or, if it is technically possible, for commercial nuclear purposes.
Several hon. Members referred to travel arrangements and asked whether the Russians would be allowed to travel. Will the Soviet inspectors be allowed to travel far from Newbury, or will they be stuck in Newbury — which is a pleasant place? When they travel around the country, will they have special branch officers travelling with them? What arrangements will be made for travelling? Will the inspectors be restricted to particular sites, or will they be allowed to travel?
There is no point in going over the arguments in the Bill again. It provides not only for the granting of immunities in respect of the Stockholm agreements, but, according to the Long Title, for

arrangements for furthering arms control or disarmament.
Once the Bill is enacted, it will become the Act under which an Order in Council will be made in respect of the INF treaty. It will also establish the machinery to ensure other verification proposals for other treaties. I very much hope that there will be other arms reduction agreements that can be covered within the Act.
The Minister looked ahead to a 50 per cent. strategic arms reduction treaty and we all look forward to that. I believe that the verification problem has largely been cracked — I would not say solved — and the steps forward on verification contained in the INF treaty will make it easier to reach agreement on a 50 per cent. strategic arms reduction treaty. Verification will obviously be more difficult in START because not all the weapons will be destroyed; half will remain. The political impetus behind the INF verification agreement is a great step forward. It will make negotiation of START easier. Indeed, negotiations on START have already begun and are moving rapidly. That should make it easier to reach agreement on a 50 per cent. arms reduction treaty.
The Minister also referred to a chemical weapons treaty. We are enacting tonight the machinery that will enable observers and inspectors to verify such a treaty. The verification of chemical weapons will pose a difficult problem. The Minister also referred to a conventional arms reduction treaty. As the Minister stressed, this legislation will enable us to provide verification in that area.
I would be out of order if I considered conventional arms reduction. However, every time that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) speaks, he gives a plug for the Western European Union. I have not always agreed with that body, but today I will give it a plug although I am not a member of it. I want to plug the WEU's recent report on the conventional arms balance in Europe. That is probably the best report on the subject. I would subscribe to most of the report, which more or less gets it right. The report will make it a little easier—it will not be easy — to reach a realistic arms reduction agreement when negotiations hopefully start between NATO and the Warsaw pact some time in February or March.
While the Minister was looking forward to other treaties, he did not refer to a treaty on the elimination or reduction of battlefield nuclear weapons.

Mr. Mellor: Quite right.

Mr. Davies: I note that the Minister says, "Quite right." We have debated this subject before and we will debate it again, but we should not debate it tonight. Apparently all the other treaties are fine, but the Government are making fools of themselves over battlefield nuclear weapons. Most NATO Defence Ministers would like to see simultaneous negotiations over those weapons. Indeed, the Federal Republic of Germany is desperate for simultaneous negotiations. I hope that the Government will think again. I do not know why they should be against it. We are not talking about giving up weapons independently; we are talking about multilateral negotiations.
The Bill establishes far-reaching verification procedures. I do not believe that those procedures would have been agreed without the political impetus that created the treaty in the first place. There have been arguments about why the treaty has come about: one side says that


it is because the West negotiated from strength. However, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, the Russians have three or four times as many missiles. That is a curious definition of negotiating from strength.
I believe that there are two main factors. First, public opinion was a powerful factor. Whatever their views about nuclear weapons, people in western Europe and the United States did not want any more of them. They felt that there were plenty around, and most people wanted them to be reduced. In the United States, the pronouncements of theologians and of the American Catholic bishops had an enormous effect on President Reagan, especially before his most recent re-election as president.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The rules of the Chamber must apply to the Front Bench. The right hon. Gentleman is straying from the Bill.

Mr. Davies: I was paying tribute to the political impetus that brought about the verification procedures in the Bill. Without that, delegates would have been sitting in Geneva for years, trying to solve the difficult problems of verification. The details can be worked out, but without political will it is not possible to reach an agreement. That will has come from the President of the United States and the General Secretary of the Soviet Communist party, both of whom, I believe, abhor nuclear weapons and want a nuclear-free world.
I conclude with a tribute to all who have campaigned for the removal of nuclear weapons. I hope and believe that this will lead to other treaties, although it will not be easy; it will probably be more difficult. I hope that the United States Senate will ratify the treaty—

Mr. Hill: And the Supreme Soviet.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) mentions the Supreme Soviet. Mr. Gorbachev himself has said that he has to get the treaty through the Supreme Soviet, but I hope that the United States Senate will not stand in the way — although I am sorry to say that its track record in ratifying treaties is not very good, from the League of Nations, to SALT 2. I hope that, for its own sake, the United States will realise that this treaty is not just about America, as, in a narrow sense, SALT 2 is. It is about weapons in Europe, although those weapons are American.
All those senators who will be flexing their muscles without enjoying themselves and putting down amendments should see the treaty in a wider context, and think of the damage that will be done to the United States in Europe if they do not ratify it. I hope that there will be no amendments under the old rule of "tacking"—which the other place can still do, but we cannot—and that the Senate will not tack on to the treaty matters which, while important. are extraneous to it. Otherwise, damage will be done to the United States and, as a result, to the West.
We welcome the Bill. I am sure that its progress in the other place will be speedy, and we look forward to the Order in Council which will enable us to debate more fully the documents with which, no doubt, we shall by then have been supplied by the Minister of State.

Mr. Mellor: By leave of the House, I shall be happy to respond to as many as possible of the points that have been

raised. There have been a number of intelligent and interesting contributions — and, of course, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) also spoke.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) ended on an important point. I am glad to he able to agree entirely with him, and indeed to commend his words and the vigour with which they were spoken. Whatever else we may fall out about in the House — and some hon. Members have gone to considerable lengths tonight to manufacture differences, even by travestying the words of others—it is clear that the House is united in welcoming the INF treaty. That is also the united position of NATO, which cannot be said too often. We do not want any member of the United States Senate to feel it necessary to ride in, like the knight in shining armour on the white charger, to rescue Europe from the consequences of the treaty. We are well content with it, have played a full part in ensuring that it came about and want it to be ratified as quickly as possible.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli asked me a number of questions, which I shall do my best to answer quickly, so that I can respond to other points. The treaty documents published by the United States will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, there is a memorandum on data, but it has not yet been published by the United States, and may never be. If it is not published, we cannot deposit it in the House, but anything that the United States publishes in relation to the principal treaty will be lodged in the House of Commons Library as soon as possible thereafter, as will the basing country agreement and the exchange of notes. We want people to know what has been done in their name.
The right hon. Gentleman was also right to say that there would be no physical destruction of warheads in Britain. Nuclear material which has been extracted can be used again.
Echoing a number of hon. Members—including my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) in his interesting speech—the right hon. Gentleman asked about inspectors. That, of course, is of particular relevance to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), whose presence in the House is always welcome to us, for we know the courage with which he has faced up to physical disabilities that would have destroyed a lesser man. I say that with all the sincerity that I can muster. My hon. Friend has done a formidable job for his constituents, who have been at the sharp end of making the Alliance's policy of standing firm work. All of us whose constituencies are remote from the issue should pay tribute to their fortitude, and to my hon. Friend's spirit in ensuring that their points were not ignored in the House.
Inspection will be restricted to two bases in the United Kingdom, which are the declared sites. I return to the point about satellite reconnaisance made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough. The treaty —although this will not necessarily be true of its successors —makes it much easier to be confident about disclosed sites, because it is possible to know by various means—satellite photography, no doubt, being one — what is present, and where it is.
Inspectors will be accompanied at all times by United Kingdom as well as United States personnel. They will enter the country for a limited period, and will not be permitted to travel outside the places which relate to their immediate needs—the site that they are inspecting, the


airfield from which they come and points on the journey inbetween. Inspectors of military exercises will often be diplomats accredited to missions already in the country, and may stay for longer. I should say, however, that the observation of Exercise Purple Warrior lasted only two or three days.
The right hon. Gentleman set out the Alliance's negotiating position—

Mr. John Browne: rose—

Mr. Mellor: I have a good deal of work to get through if I am to answer the debate in full. I do not mean to be discourteous, but I must try to answer the debate in 10 minutes, which is not easy.
The INF agreement and the START agreement on conventional and chemical weapons form not only the United Kingdom's but the Alliance's negotiating position.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: What about battlefield weapons and Chancellor Kohl?

Mr. Mellor: The West Germans subscribe to the Alliance's policy, like everybody else. Faced with the huge chemical and conventional threat, we believe that chemical weapons must be eliminated and the imbalance in conventional weapons redressed before we consider the negotiations on short-range nuclear forces.
I am not confident that the verification regimes for those matters, which will be more complicated than those for the INF agreement, could be contained in the procedures set out in the Bill. It is likely that they will require primary legislation; that is almost certainly the case for chemical weapons. It may well be the case for START, but it is not the case with regard to the INF agreement.
I am sorry that the Labour party persists in saying that the United Kingdom was and is irrelevant to these discussions. I suspect that the British public will take more notice of Mr. Gorbachev's views about the United Kingdom's relevance than the views of the Leader of the Opposition and his spokesmen. It is worth recalling what Mr. Gorbachev said at Brize Norton during his historic visit on Monday:
We have covered this road together—the Soviet Union, the United States, Great Britain and your allies and partners.
On 8 December Pravda said—

Mr. Cryer: Conservatives are quoting Pravda now.

Mr. Mellor: I would have thought that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) would treat Pravda with respect. [Interruption.] It is all grist to our mill these days. Pravda said:
Both sides emphasise that the INF agreement was not only a result of the efforts of the Soviet Union and the USA but also due to the fact that they had acted in agreement with their allies. Here, Mr. Gorbachev emphasised Europe's role, which was not only indispensable, but increasing.
In saying that Mr. Gorbachev merely stopped off for a cup of airline coffee, the Labour party exposed how out of touch it is with events. I hate to rub salt into the wounds that gape every time Labour Members rise uncertainly to their feet to talk about these issues, but we have had 17 years of Labour government since the war, yet during that time a General Secretary of the Soviet Communist party never considered it remotely worth while to come to the United Kingdom. The Labour party must understand that things have changed.
The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) was kind enough to thank me for trying to respond to detailed debates in Committee. I am grateful to him; he and I have been over a few courses in Committee and I have no doubt we shall do so again. He asked about inspectors; there will be a list of inspectors but they could be refused entry. An inspection must take place within the terms of the treaty. One of the key matters that we considered necessary to protect British sovereignty was the right of veto of an unsuitable inspector, and we shall not hesitate to exercise it if need be. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that we shall not want to get involved in tit-for-tat arrangements. Plainly, everyone will want to use their best endeavours to ensure that inspections go smootly.
The hon. Member for Leyton asked about the draw-down period. We expect the missiles at Molesworth to go within a year and that the others will go within the three-year period of draw-down, after which there will be a liability for inspections for a further 10 years.
The hon. Member for Leyton mentioned deployment at Molesworth, and I should make it clear that it was always part of the Molesworth deployment schedule that the first flight would become operational before the end of this year—as soon as the base was ready for them. Efforts to meet that end have been under way for several months, and had matters taken their normal course, the base would have become fully operational—four flights of missiles would have been established—by the end of 1988. Although the treaty cannot come into force until it is ratified by the United States Senate, the Alliance has agreed to suspend deployment following the signature of the agreement. The Alliance has been desperate to achieve consensus on that, and I am sure that there is agreement among hon. Members on that matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) plays a leading role in the Western European Union, as well as in the House. The WEU is a useful body, as I discovered when I was there last week. Hon. Members participate in it to try to achieve agreement within the Alliance on key issues. My hon. Friend asked about the number of inspectors. We expect it to be not more than 10, which is a relatively limited number. He asked about conditions for inspections behind the iron curtain —[Interruption.] That is the phrase that was used; whether it fits in with the right hon. Gentleman's views is another matter. Those who go to eastern Europe and the Soviet Union to carry out obligations under the INF treaty will have precisely the same terms and conditions as Soviet inspectors coming here.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) repeated the brazen assertion that she made on Second Reading — that the INF treaty came about because of the peace movement. That brazen assertion was also made during a radio interview in which I was taking part by Monsignor Bruce Kent, who plays Rasputin to the Lady's Tsarina in the peace movement. He is every bit as brazen as the hon. Lady, although he is not so attractive.

Mr. Robertson: The same could be said of the Minister.

Mr. Mellor: I concede that, in the spirit of honesty and candour that informs these issues. I try to be nice to the hon. Lady when I can; there was little in her speech that was favourable.
The reality is that this arrangement came about because the so-called peace movement was defeated at elections in


the United Kingdom. The hon. Lady unattractively mingled paranoia and a dislike of the United States in her speech. All the examples that she gave of avoidance of obligation concerned the United States. I wish that the hon. Lady would get it into her head that we should also ensure that the Soviet Union is not avoiding its obligations. If the hon. Lady looks for violations of treaties, she is as likely to find them on the Soviet side as on the other.
We hope and believe that the regime of verification that has been undertaken, which is more obtrusive than anything contained in any East-West agreement in the past, will enable everyone to be sure that these arrangements are stuck to.
The hon. Member for Deptford travestied the Prime Minister's position. The Prime Minister and President Reagan agreed a negotiating strategy, which was subsequently agreed by NATO as long ago as November 1986. The hon. Lady said that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had said that nuclear disarmament had gone far enough. That was a description of the position after the INF and START treaties had been completed and had nothing to do with her suggesting that there was no need for START negotiations; she is as anxious as any of us for them to be successful.
After this interesting debate, I hope that we shall agree to give the Bill a unanimous Third Reading. Whatever else we may disagree about, we agree about the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

London Docklands Railway (Beckton) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

7 pm

Mr. Neil Thorne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I should tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the instruction to the Committee on the Bill, and it will be in order to debate it as part of the general debate on the Bill.

Mr. Thorne: The docklands light railway is one of the outstanding success stories of recent years. Even before its opening it had a remarkable effect upon the volume of interest expressed in the docklands enterprise zone. A large number of businesses were attracted to the area in the expectation that exceptionally good public transport facilities would be provided to give quick and easy commuter access. That process was reinforced by the passing last year of the London Docklands Railway (City Extension) Act, which will give ready access to the City institutions, via the Bank, in addition to commuter access via the Stratford British Rail interchange provided for in earlier legislation.
Since the opening of the railway by Her Majesty the Queen on 30 July this year and after the computer teething troubles that delayed its public use for a further month, the volume of passengers has exceeded all expectations. Furthermore, London Regional Transport is being besieged from all directions to extend the network across the river to Greenwich and north-east to Barking. I even received a strongly worded personal plea from the Bishop of Barking and Father Barnes, the vicar of St. Mary's, Ilford, who are by no means happy to hear that Beckton is the furthest point in the present proposals. They believe that it is essential to provide an interchange with the Southend-Fenchurch street line as quickly as possible.
Because of this unprecedented success, the promoters would be happy to accept the proposed instruction in the names of the hon. Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing):
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill, That it Report to the House on the evidence to it concerning the adequacy, or otherwise, of the characteristics and capacity of the proposed railway in relation to the likely demands placed on the railway by existing and planned development in and around the area of the Royal Docks.
London Regional Transport is promoting the Beckton extension of the docklands light railway on behalf of the London Docklands development corporation. Under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, the LDDC is charged with promoting the redevelopment of the docklands area. The redevelopment process is well under way. To date more than £2,400 million has been committed, including £2,200 million from the private sector. To the middle of this year about 660 new companies had set up businesses and more than 10,000 new jobs had been created. A further 3,000 jobs would be created or preserved in existing firms as a result of grants approved under the Inner Urban Areas Act scheme. NI ore than 6,000 private homes have been built, 45 per cent. of which have been bought by residents of docklands boroughs.
Improving public transport accessibility is an essential requirement of the redevelopment process. To this end


LRT is constructing the docklands light railway through the area. The first stage of the railway, which opened on 31 August, consists of two routes, totalling 12 km, linking Stratford to the north and the City to the west with the Isle of Dogs development area. This is known as the initial railway. Work has now started on extending the initial railway at the western end by some 1·8 km to Bank station to provide a better interchange with the Underground and a link to the heart of the City business area. The extension is being jointly funded by the Government and the developers of Canary wharf on the Isle of Dogs, and will be open for passenger service in late 1990.
Under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 the London Docklands development corporation was established — by the London Docklands Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1980 — as the urban development corporation for London docklands for the purpose of securing the regeneration of its area. The corporation believes that the works proposed and the powers intended to be conferred by the Bill will help to achieve that.
Under the London Docklands Railway Acts 1984 and 1985, the promoters constructed railway works which led to the public opening of the first stage of the docklands light railway from the new Tower Gateway station at Minories to the Isle of Dogs and Stratford in the summer of this year. The promoters have obtained powers, in the London Docklands Railway (City Extension) Act 1986, which will enable them to extend the DLR from Tower Gateway to Bank. The Bill is therefore seen as authorising stage 4 of the docklands light railway to provide an eastern extension from Poplar through the areas of Leamouth, the royal docks and Cyprus to the housing development sites at Beckton.
The principal clause—clause 4—gives the power to construct a number of works: works Nos. 1 and 2 are railways providing connections with the DLR at Poplar. Work No. 3 is a railway which would constitute the eastern extension of the DLR to Beckton. Works Nos. 4 and 5 are short lengths of railway from the eastern extension into the site of the former Beckton holder station gas works.
Clauses 5 to 14 of the Bill would confer the necessary powers for the construction of works Nos. I to 5, including special provision for crossing that part of the River Lea known as Bow creek.
Part III of the Bill provides powers to acquire lands compulsorily for the purposes of the works to be authorised by the Bill, and clause 16 gives the promoters the option to acquire such new rights over any of the lands as my be required instead of acquiring any greater interest in those lands. The period for the compulsory purchase of lands and new rights under the Bill is limited by clause 17 and expires on 31 December 1992.
Other provisions in the Bill contain powers uniform with those already conferred by the London Docklands Railway Acts 1984 and 1985 and the London Docklands Railway (City Extension) Act 1986 so as to achieve an integrated system for operating the docklands light railway.
At the expiry of the petitioning time laid down by the House, 10 petitions had been deposited against the Bill, but one of those has been withdrawn. There appear to be no objections to the concept of the Bill. One fundamental objection is to the intended route of the railway. The Bill

provides for a southern alignment across Bow creek, while the majority of petitioners seek a northern route providing for a DLR station at Canning Town.
Following detailed discussion and the refinement of the design and layout of the works at Poplar, in the Connaught road area and at Beckton, adjustments to the proposals are sought in an additional provision, for which leave has now been given to promote. The adjustments would enable the new railway to be integrated more effectively with the highway proposals and other developments in the locality.
The DLR is only one of the numerous projects designed to regenerate London docklands and the route selected is that which is felt to provide the greatest benefit in the long term, having regard to the development potential of the area, the road schemes being implemented or planned, the other forms of transport available or to be provided and the expenditure allocated to the DLR. Consequently, the alternative route through Canning Town is not favoured and the promoters adhere to their choice as proposed in the Bill; but this will, of course, be considered in detail in any subsequent Committee.
The promoters, therefore, ask that the Bill be given a Second Reading so that they may be allowed to proceed and put to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred their case for the provisions of the Bill and of the additional provision.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I begin by saying that I shall not oppose the Bill. On the last occasion when the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) and I crossed swords on the issue of the docklands light railway, I opposed the proposal that he put forward. Tonight it is a pleasure to say that I do not oppose the Bill whose provisions he has just outlined.
I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for selecting the instruction in my name and that of my hon. Friends from the London borough of Newham, and the hon. Gentleman and the promoters for accepting it. That will assist the Committee in its important deliberations.
I shall not follow the hon. Member for Ilford, South too far down the road of the London Docklands development corporation, on which I fear we would have differences of view, particularly about his reference to the 45 per cent. of local east end residents who had bought houses. That may have been the initial figure, but, as everyone will know, things have changed since then and, whatever happens to the Bill or to the docklands light railway, I suspect that the figures will change in the future. But I do not want to pursue that because, of all things in dockland, until now the principle—and I emphasise that—of the docklands light railway has been agreed on both sides.
The Minister will be glad to know that when it was first promoted it had the agreement of the Greater London council, the London borough of Newham, the Docklands Forum, the Joint Action Group in the Docklands and every conceivable residents' and community association, as well as of the LDDC and the Government, so that is at least one feature on which we can agree on principle. I can go back even further, because many years ago the much maligned but, I think, quite good Docklands Joint Committee published a pamphlet entitled "Bus, Tram or Train?". The group put together a discussion document in 1974 and it plumped not for the tram — which is, in effect, what the DLR is—but for the train.
In the dockland strategic plan which the group then published there was an extension of the Fleet line through dockland, albeit taking a slightly different route from the one that we are discussing tonight, extending to Thamesmead. Unfortunately, public money did not stretch to a full tube railway at that stage.
The group also published a good many other plans, including the "Technical Appendix to London Docklands" and "The Years of Growth". So what happened at that stage was better than some people now believe, particularly those who parrot some of the things that have been said by the LDDC. To some extent, therefore, the Bill is a substitute for the proposal at that time, which was passed by the House, for the extension of the Fleet line right to Thamesmead. So, in a sense, we have gone back 10 or 15 years to where we were before, with a scheme that is a substitute for it.
I mentioned earlier the considerable degree of agreement. The disagreement arises, first, over the route. The Canning Town loop proposal has been referred to by the hon. Member for Ilford, South. There is also disagreement on the funding and on some of the purposes to which the railway will be put; in other words, over our interpretation of "regeneration". Regeneration in east London, particularly in the London borough of Newham, has not, as interpreted by the LDDC, been in favour of the existing communities. It has been in favour of other people.
We are concerned with the railway tonight, so it is appropriate for me to quote from the annual report of the Docklands Forum, a body set up and commended by the House of Lords Committee which set up the LDDC. It had this to say about the docklands light railway in the annual report for 1986:
The Forum has continued to press for the eastern extension of the DLR to Beckton. Members objected strongly when the necessary Bill was not allowed to be laid before Parliament in November 1985 because 100 per cent. private funding could not be guaranteed. The Forum considers that public funding for the Beckton extension cannot now be refused because the City extension is to receive at least £60 million of public money despite a Government statement that the DLR would receive no further public money. When the extension goes ahead, Forum members are concerned that the service to the local community should be maximised, and that means a should run to Beckton District Centre via South Canning Town".
It is on that note that I turn to the fundamental issue with which we are very concerned— the Canning Town loop. When petitions come to be heard in Committee, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Ilford, South, the borough of Newham will be foremost in putting a petition in favour of the Canning Town loop, followed by residents' associations in the Canning Town area, who understand the position and who would want that very much because, in the view of the local people, it is not, and should not be, a developers' railway alone. The Government may want that, the LDDC may want that, but the people of east London are due and deserve a railway that they can use, as well as a railway that will be used for the other purposes that the Government have in mind.
We cannot understand why the Government and the LDDC — perhaps the Government are neutral on this, but certainly the LDDC is not—will not concede the idea of the train calling at Canning Town, which is the centre of Newham dockland and one of the major community centres in east London. It is both a shopping

centre and a market centre. In particular, it lies at the end of many bus routes and is therefore a natural centre for transport interchange.
It might be thought that the loop entails an enormous detour. It does not. It is about half a mile, or even less, longer than the direct route chosen by the LDDC. It might be thought that it would cost a lot more. When I originally wrote to Christopher Benson, chairman of the LDDC, he wrote back claiming that it would be very much more expensive. I believe that the promoters have subsequently claimed that too, but there have been reports, the gap is narrower, and the London borough of Newham tells me that, according to its calculations, it might even be cheaper to take the route that the people of Newham prefer.
Be that as it may — and it will be discussed in Committee—it might also be thought that the journey time will be longer. One of the objections, we were told, is that people hurrying to the City would have to go via Canning Town and it would take longer. If they go by the direct route, there is one station. If they go by the loop, there is one station. If it is half a mile longer, if acceleration and stopping times are the same, and if the train travels at an average of only 20 mph—a very modest speed—I make the additional time about a minute and a half. So that argument falls flat as well.
There is yet another reason that might make the loop superior. The bridge across the River Lea would allow easier navigation of sea-going and river-going ships, up part of the River Lea which otherwise might be disadvantaged by a bridge lower down. All in all, we cannot see why that loop should not be built. The residents and the London borough will put their case to the Committee, so I will leave it at that, but I do not want to underestimate the symbolic importance of putting a station at Canning Town, historic centre of east London, because putting the line directly across the Lea will cock a snook at the people of east London, who have taken a great deal recently.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Is the Government's case primarily one of cost? Has my hon. Friend noticed that they built an inadequate railway, for cost reasons, and then keep adding bits? There have been changes since the Bill was laid last year, and we hear that other bits will be added on. Is it not likely that, in the future, the Canning Town loop will be added on? It would be much cheaper to build it now rather than in two or three years' time.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend is right, and, as I have said — this will be discussed in Committee— the cost would probably be less if it were built now. The Government are standing off a little, at least procedurally, on this matter. The cost may not be borne by public funds, as some of us think it should, but may be borne by the developers themselves. If the cost is equal, they will not have to pay any more to provide a service for local people which they originally wanted to deny. These are important considerations which no doubt will be addressed in Committee.
My hon. Friend has pointed to another matter. If the original route goes via Canning Town in a loop, no one would object to an alternative route being built at a later date. That is another possibility that has not yet been canvassed.
The petitions will also deal with other matters. I shall not spend much time on these, but it is important to list


them. Some people differ in their views about the sites of stations. This is true in Newham and in part of Tower Hamlets, where part of the new railway will be built. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) may wish to raise that matter. There was a proposal to narrow Victoria Dock road in my constituency. This may appear to be an extraordinary proposal when one considers the heavy use of roads in the area as a result of the development in the royal docks. Later proposals might have made this unnecessary, but it is a matter of local concern.
The elevation of the railway has caused problems. There has been trouble with noise in Tower Hamlets, where the original undertakings in respect of noise have not been carried out. Residents in Strait road, the Cyprus area and Winsor terrace will seek an undertaking from the promoters about routes. We hope that discussions will resolve those problems before the Bill goes into Committee.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South mentioned the branch line to the Beckton gas works now being demolished. That is planned as a depot—

Mr. Thorne: indicated assent.

Mr. Spearing: I see that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me. This is important, because, although depots may be silent, this one would be near Winsor terrace and the residents would like undertakings about the design layout and any noise that may come from the depot. Those are matters for the Committee.
I wish to deal now with the important matter of funding. I quoted from the Forum report, which stated that the City extension was originally to be funded entirely by private money. It is now to be funded by a proportion of private and public money, but we understand—the Minister may confirm this— that the railway extension will be wholly funded by the developers, or through the increased value of the land when the railway has been built. This is contrary to most approaches to such matters in this country until now. Usually, the public fund a road or railway and, through subsequent planning controls, the community—I emphasise that—benefits from it.
The Government have driven a coach and horses through that principle in favour of another which does not find favour on the Opposition Benches. It means that the railway and the development that it serves go hand in hand, which is one of the less attractive features of the development. As the developments will not be founded on local needs, but are being devoted to other purposes, the money for it is coming from those developments. We must be sure, and I am sure that the promoters will demonstrate in Committee, that the money that is likely to be available from those developments will meet the estimated cost of the railway, which in current prices is about £140 million.
How exactly will that work? This is an important point, not just for the railway, but for my constituency, through which it runs. We have been told—it was re-emphasised a moment ago—that the cost of the railway will be defrayed from the rising cost of the land, which itself will be made more attractive by virtue of the railway. As I understand it, the LDDC will be valuing the land after planning permission has been given and— I emphasise this—it has come to an agreement with the developer on

what that value shall be. It is necessary to go through the stages, because it is a controversial area both in content and in method.
First, planning permission must be obtained, and planning permission for the area of the royal docks that is served by the railway is now going through the due process. There has been one formal referral back to the LDDC, and at some stage it will no doubt agree it and then, at a later date, put a price on the land relative to the planning permission that has been given.
It is at that point that I lose track of the process. Either the land will be allowed to the developer at a lower cost than it would otherwise merit by virtue of the planning permission and the developer will then pay to the DLR or London Transport, or whoever is building the railway, the relevant amount, or it will get the land on its books at less than the price, and the LDDC, having forgone that amount of money, will pass it over to the contractor or the DLR.
I take it that it is the former process that will operate. This is of some importance, because this is a novel method of funding public transport. I believe that this is the first time that that method has been used, at least to any great extent. It is the Minister's responsibility to tell us this evening how that will be done. If he cannot do so this evening, he should do so before we go much further.
There could be some slip twixt cup and lip. I suppose that the developers are all right, but we have read about some difficulties in the City, and a difficulty may arise from a judgment that will come from Luxembourg in the not too distant future relating to VAT on building. We know that the provisional judgment does not relate to VAT on private housing, but it may well end up relating to commercial developments and to buildings for retail consortia, and so on. At some stage, the financial mechanism must be looked at carefully. We want to make sure that the resources are available.
In addition, we must look at the development itself. The royal docks are now undergoing enormous change.

Mr. Tony Banks: Before my hon. Friend moves on to consider other matters, will he reflect on the fact that the Beckton extension is being funded by receipts from the LDDC from land sales, with no direct Government money, despite the fact that the Government are prepared to put over £60 million into the DLR City extension to allow the Canary Wharf development? At the moment the Government seem prepared to use public money to subsidise private transport, yet public transport is to be financed totally from the private sector. There will be £300 million of public money in the docklands highway. Is that not typical of the Government's approach, which is to subsidise the private sector and ask the public sector to go private in order to get the financing that we want in Newham?

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining the new territory, in terms of both funding and planning public transport, that we are now entering by virtue of the Bill. The Bill may be something of a precedent.
Let me take up what my hon. Friend said about the City extension. I am sure that the Minister will remember, about two years ago in the House, the rather dramatic evening when he announced that the money for the City extension could not be raised by private funds. We may


hear the same about the eastern extension, for all we know. If it could not be done for the Canary Wharf, and it still has not been done, what about the royal docks and the Beckton extension? That is an important point of principle.
I remind the House that at that stage it was said that all the money could not be found, but what has happened subsequently to Canary Wharf? It has had to pay only £8 million in cash and it has been let off £12 million in lieu of its contribution to the City extension and other bits and pieces. Therefore, Canary Wharf, with its enormous development, is getting a great deal from public land that was once owned by the Port of London Authority. Indeed, all the land in the royal docks that is being developed is either ex-Port of London Authority land or ex-gas board land and is owned by the British people. That should be well understood.

Mr. Leighton: My hon. Friend has great knowledge of transport matters, in which he has been interested over the years. Has he ever known another example of funding in this way from enhanced land value? After all, it is clear that if one builds a railway on a piece of land, the value of that land will be increased. Is the same not true if one builds a road? For example, the land adjacent to the M25 must have increased in value. The Government are happy to finance the roads out of public money, and are doing so in the docklands area and the east end of London, which is for the private sector, but when it comes to the public sector, we have this curious arrangement of which I have never heard before. Has my hon. Friend ever known that principle to be adopted? The other bit of the railway into the City brings people from the City, Sussex and Surrey into the docklands— the so-called yuppies. That bit of the railway is being financed by the Government, but for our constituents to get out of the east end into the City, the Government adopt this method.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be brief.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining my point. The Minister may be able to tell us whether there is any precedent. I rather think not.
I go one step further than my hon. Friend. The fact that roads have been publicly funded in that way has been balanced by the fact that any development that may come — or not, as we hope, in the case of the M25 — is constrained by proper planning procedures. There have been some planning procedures in the LDDC area, but not, I emphasise, planning procedures that were generally agreed after the war on both sides of the House for the public good. Those planning procedures are organised by the LDDC, a wholly appointed, undemocratic body and a creature of the Secretary of State. The planning procedures in the royal docks are different from those that would have protected public money invested in roads and railways.
Not only do we have a different sort of statutory procedure, but the Secretary of State has recently announced that instead of having a public inquiry into one of the major developments in the royal docks, the LDDC will be allowed to determine the matter without any public inquiry. The area that the railway is to serve is the subject of about 15 different planning elements, all of which have been made public, although no formal planning application has been determined for any of them. There

are about 15 different plans for major developments, any one of which, on planning criteria, could have led to a major national public inquiry in its own right. The area of the royal docks along which the railway runs, if it were described in terms of central London, would run from the Palace of Westminster to Kensington Palace. The area it involves is larger than Kensington gardens and Hyde park put together. That is the area that will be served by the extension of the railway.
What will be put there? Messrs Rosehaugh Stanhope has five different elements in its plan, which is before the LDDC. It proposes 1,000 homes in the western area of the site, plus schools, shops, a business park of 2·5 million sq ft, and a retail centre, and a community leisure centre of another 1 million sq ft. That is a planning proposal currently before the LDDC on which the Minister has said that there will be no public inquiry. The retail centre and the rest of the plan—apart from the houses—probably would not be there but for the Bill.
The second scheme, north of the Victoria docks, put forward by Lang-Fox-Vom — the London dome —proposes 2,000 homes, with facilities attached, a hotel, ultimately with 700 rooms, a sports dome to seat 23,000 people and another business centre. That is the second major area.
The third proposal, from Heron-Mowlem-Conran Roche south of the Victoria docks in the area surrounding the mills, would provide 4,000 dwellings, only a few of which would be let at fair rent, 500,000 sq ft of business premises and light industrial areas. That is rivalled by another scheme for the same area of the Victoria dock village, run by the East London Housing Association and Messrs. Barratt. There is a race to see which will get it. If my arithmetic is correct, that would amount to 7,000 dwellings, in addition to the business and retail premises.
That is an enormous development. One could say that it will not get through, but it will, because on 31 March the Secretary of State said:
I have today approved a strategy for the royal docks proposed to me by the LDDC which will turn 270 hectares of derelict land into a new employment, retailing, leisure and residential centre for London. The LDDC strategy, completed in consultation with me, will provide 7,000 housing units"—
my estimate was right—
and some 48,000 jobs."—[Official Report, 31 March 1987; Vol. 113, c. 440.]
That was the intention of the Secretary of State, who is working the planning procedure that I described, broadly to approve the investments that I have outlined, and to estimate—his estimate may be slightly over the top—that there will be 48,000 jobs.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State regularly goes right over the top and has to be brought into line by the courts, as we have known, in his various ministerial guises. Indeed, he is a recidivist in many respects. Does my hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members who represent east London welcome jobs, but would like to think that many of those jobs will go to the people who live in the east end who presently suffer unemployment? Will he comment on the scandalous situation in which a Secretary of State can give planning permission for monumental developments without any reference whatsoever to the needs and wishes of the people in the east end of London, as expressed by their democratically elected councillors?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be persuaded to go too far down that line. We are getting a long way away from the Beckton railway.

Mr. Spearing: With due respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is not so. The railway goes right through those developments and would not be funded if it were not for them. I understand your reminder, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will not pursue too far what my hon. Friend has said. However, that is so. It illustrates the points that I made earlier. If people from Newham took those jobs, they would not need to travel on the DLR. They would walk or take the bus, and that would probably be better for everybody. It is true that an industrial zone is being retained, but we would like jobs for local people, and we wonder how many there will be.
The railway is at the centre of the debate. The planners and the LDDC have told us that in spite of the railway they expect 60 per cent. of those moving in and out of the enormous development to travel by road. That is an important estimate. I do not know whether it is true, but at least there is that assumption. We have to do some sums to see how many are expected to travel on the railway. In other words, we need to do some mathematics on what is technically called the modal split.
I do not know what the demand for the railway will be. I should have thought that it would be better to have an even higher proportion than 60 per cent. travelling by public transport because a great deal of money has been provided for the roads. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) mentioned a figure of £300 million for the east London highway, which is in Tower Hamlets and goes under Limehouse basin. That is an enormous cost. The roads in Newham will cost between £140 million and £200 million, about the same as the cost of the railway. However, the roads will be provided by the Department of Transport.

Mr. Leighton: By the taxpayer.

Mr. Spearing: Yes, by the taxpayer. Those roads will benefit people who will perhaps not be using public transport so much. However, the railway will be funded by the developers. That is an anomaly and shows the way in which the Government's introduction of urban development corporations has upset the apple cart in all sorts of ways. I have to ask whether the railway will be able to cope with all those enormous developments.

Mr. Leighton: It will not.

Mr. Spearing: I do not think that we can argue that tonight. That is a matter for the Committee and that is why I tabled the instruction. I am grateful to the Minister and the promoters for accepting it. These matters should be debated and looked at closely in Committee.
I tabled the instruction before I received in the post a very helpful document — I want to pay tribute to the promoters for producing it—which tells us a little more about the proposed characteristics of the railway. It shows that the capacity of the railway is perhaps not as great as we might have thought. In a table in the document we are told that in 1991 which is when the service to Beckton will be introduced, it will have a capacity of about 3,900 passengers per hour. That is based on the present one-unit train operating now. The ultimate capacity will be 11,700 passengers per hour. That is with an interval of only four minutes between trains.
Perhaps those figures can be modified. We know that the railway is suffering from some electronic bugs and it may not be able to run at less than four-minute intervals. Although a capacity of 11,700 passengers per hour may sound a lot, it is not when there are 23,000 seats around the London dome and all the housing that I have listed. I am beginning to wonder whether the Dockland Joint Committee—a much maligned body—was right and that perhaps a rather more substantial railway would have been wiser, particularly as there is a demand for extensions to Thamesmead and there may be demands for other extensions. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) is present, and there is a logical extension to Barking.
I suggested that two or tree years ago, but the Department of Transport pooh-poohed it and threw the suggestion out of the window when I asked for the roadworks to be modified on the road to Barking —which will be opened shortly — which would have allowed a good route for the railway.
In short, people in the area like the principle of the railway. It will be advantageous to people living in Newham. It will enable them to travel to central London and to move around in Newham, which is a good thing. However, we think that the railway is rather cheap and that it could have been more substantial. We would like to see some of the electronic bugs ironed out. Above all, we regret that the railway, through financing and through its engineering, is not part of the coherent pattern of transport that we would like. Nevertheless, we do not oppose the Bill, for the reasons I have outlined.

Mr. Peter Shore: The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) who presented the Bill will certainly have eased its Second Reading by the competent manner in which he has described the contents and purport of the Bill and, most notably, by his wise acceptance of the petition in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
It is minimal common sense that there should be a study to see whether the new proposed Beckton extension is adequate to meet the scale of use that can be expected, taking account of the major planning developments listed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South.
I feel that the fact that we have not had a comprehensive study of rail and road transport needs in the entire docklands area is a serious omission. I fully understand the difficulties of planning too far in advance, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South reminded the House, a considerable exercise in forward planning was done 10 years ago by the docklands joint committee when it published the docklands strategy. I am glad to say that, as Secretary of State for the Environment at that time, I was broadly able to accept it when it was published in 1976. In that document the committee was able to make reasonable forecasts about the scale of transport needs and to present a strategy to that effect. We are certainly suffering from the loss of such a strategy for road and rail transport now.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South mentioned the fact that this is the fourth Bill on the docklands light railway that we have had in the past few years. The first two authorised the construction of the DLR from Tower


Gateway — the station in the Minories in my constituency—to the Isle of Dogs and Stratford. That large stretch of the DLR has now been completed and it has been operational since the autumn. The third Bill, which was before us last year, will take the DLR from Tower Gateway to the Bank. The main purpose is to link the City to the vast Canary Wharf development on the Isle of Dogs.
Although improved communications in the docklands are welcome, problems have arisen. Those problems should be discussed and faced now. My colleague and parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon), who is indisposed tonight, would have wanted to raise two broad points about the Bill which directly affect her constituents. First, at Poplar the Bill allows for a flyover to be built to take the track for the Beckton extension. I am assured that that takes the track very close to residential areas.
The second point relates to Blackwall station, which is located on a flyover across a six-exit roundabout. That is a serious point. Unless something is done, pedestrian access is bound to be unsafe and inadequate. I hope that London Regional Transport will do its utmost to overcome or minimise such problems. I hope that that matter will be thoroughly discussed in Committee.
Unlike its predecessors, the Bill does not directly affect my constituents in Stepney and Bethnal Green, but some important lessons are to be drawn from our experience with the DLR so far, which I hope will be applied to the proposed extension of the railway to Beckton.
First, there is the problem of excessive noise. The DLR has not proved to be a quiet railway. In particular, I refer to that stretch of the DLR which runs along Cable street, Stepney, which is in my constituency. Noise limits were specified at the time of the construction of the railway. I regret to say that they have been exceeded at many locations, as independent noise reports, carried out by the South Bank polytechnic, have confirmed. It did a most important study that showed that actual noise levels are above the specified noise levels at only one location during the day. That is not too bad. However, in the evening and at night, recorded noise levels are under specified noise levels at only one point. That is a serious criticism. The reason for high noise levels is the poor noise insulation quality of the concrete and steel elevated structures. Noise is echoed by the steel structures. That demonstrates poor design work and the results of cost cutting.
Further, it is our belief that existing noise specifications should be reduced because the noise of the DLR is characterised by a low rumble, which is not included in conventional noise measurements. My council, the London borough of Tower Hamlets, is now calling for a level of 35 dB(A) to be specified. The noise problem will be enormously enlarged when the City extension line is completed because the number of passengers and coaches will be at least quadrupled.
The second point, of which we already have experience, is the loss of privacy. That flows from the elevated nature of the railway in most parts of my constituency through which it runs. Residents' homes are overlooked. Station design should include visual as well as noise screens. Lights should be shaded so that they do not shine into people's homes.
The third point relates to safety in the broadest sense. The stations that have been built so far are unmanned and open all night. It is extraordinary that the docklands light

railway system is guarded only by a partial video screening that is taken from a central point. We in the east end of London are terribly well-behaved, but stations that are unmanned and only lightly and indirectly supervised by video cameras may give rise to serious vandalism problems — and, indeed, even worse problems. I am being extremely British and understating the problem. However, it is serious. Although the line has only recently been completed—it is almost a brand-new line—I have the greatest anxieties and worries about what may happen in future. The defects should be not only avoided in the new Beckton extension but remedied throughout the existing DLR route.
Many problems are due to the inadequate funding of the DLR. The different financial packages for the line have been put together in an extraordinary way. One package relies upon Government finance. A second package — the extension of the DLR to Bank station in the City—is a mixture of private money and public investment. Apparently the latest package — the extension to Beckton—is to be funded by wholly private sources. We wait with interest to hear what the Minister has to say about that. The system is not fully and adequately financed.
The Government and London Regional Transport have a real responsibility to ensure that the system works in accordance with the full standards of safety and amenity that the public expect. If a further Government input into the docklands light railway is required to overcome the problems that I have described in relation not only to the extension to Beckton but throughout the existing system, then so be it. We should expect the Government to make that financial contribution.

Mr. Tony Banks: I emphasise what my right hon. Friend said in the context of other London Regional Transport developments. Quite recently we saw that the effect of underfunding provided by the Government for London Regional Transport and its own cost-cutting exercises was to reduce the margin of safety on the Underground and bus systems. We do not want to prejudice the outcome of the inquiry into the King's Cross fire, but clearly there seems to be a link between cost-cutting exercises and the margin of safety. My right hon. Friend attended the meeting between London Labour Members and Dr. Bright, the chairman of London Regional Transport. Would my right hon. Friend care to say more about the safety aspects of the DLR?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend's point was at the back of my mind. It is at the back of all our minds when we discuss rail transport in London and the appalling disaster at King's Cross station. Special dangers are associated with underground systems as opposed to overground systems, but safety problems must be at the absolute forefront of all our minds.
I merely repeat that the safety of passengers must be considered. They often go to dark stations late at night. Such stations may be peopled by only a handful of passengers, and, as we know, totally unmanned by railway staff.

Ms. Jo Richardson: As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has already said, Opposition Members will not oppose the Bill. Much


of it will be considered in more detail in Committee. Obviously, I am not opposed to the basic principle of extending a railway to give better facilities to people who live beyond the points to which it extends at present. Beckton is not in my constituency, but it is next door. Many of my constituents shop in Beckton. They know its name almost as well as they know the name of their own constituency. What happens in east London generally greatly affects the people of Barking. As the entire development of London docklands is creeping towards us, such things impinge on the lives of my constituents.
Although we do not oppose the basic principle of improving transport facilities in this part of London, I wonder whether this is not another lost opportunity. If London Regional Transport and the Government had properly thought out extending the transport facilities to and beyond east London, we should have had a better proposition, about which we might not have had so many queries. We frequently have lost opportunities in this House. They have occurred in, for example, the Education Reform Bill and the Housing Bill, and doubtless we shall find the same with the poll tax Bill. However, this seems a classic case of a lost opportunity.
In an intervention a few moments ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) said — I am paraphrasing — that he could foresee the possibility that a little later on, the docklands light railway might go in another direction, or a little further. Why not think out the whole thing to start with, so that at least everybody knows where they are?

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend asked why this issue could not have been thought out. As a former member of the Greater London council transport and planning committee, I can answer that the trouble is that there is no longer a strategic planning authority for London. Therefore, public money or, come to that, private money cannot be deployed in the most effective or best way for the people of London, whatever income they have or whatever job they do.

Ms. Richardson: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I had intended to make a point about the GLC later, but my hon. Friend has made it for me.
All the thinking behind the Bill has been derived: it has not resulted from genuine planning. I hope that my hon. Friend, who has a much greater knowledge of this part of London than I have—although I regularly travel up and down the highway, bumping down that inadequate road —agrees that this should be an opportunity for people in the area to have an input into the type of transport system that they want. When the GLC existed, the people who lived in houses and flats in the area — not necessarily commuters—could go along to the GLC to make their views heard through that council. They no longer have that, and it is a significant lack.
Although the Bill is, as it were, privately promoted by London Regional Transport, I detect the Government's hand hovering over it. Obviously, the aim of the Bill is to open up docklands in line with the Government's thinking on docklands. The sponsors have failed to listen to the very people who would be likely to use—or would like to use—the facility of the railway. I believe that I am right in saying that one could call it a commuters' railway rather than a residents' railway.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and because she has put her finger precisely on the point—that the primary purpose of the railway is not to serve the people of the east end, any more than is the opening up of docklands. That is why there is so much objection from the communities in the east end to the developments in docklands and to the railway. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to point out the difference between now, when there is no public accountability in community terms, and the time when the Greater London council was responsible for the strategic planning of London and was the transport authority as well.

Ms. Richardson: My hon. Friend is quite right. One can envisage situations in which a railway might have been planned, as might have happened under the GLC had we still had that authority—with the people of, in this case, Newham and Barking in mind. Although I am glad that in Barking we do not have such high unemployment as Newham where, I believe, it is 20 per cent; nevertheless it is a depressing and problematic issue. When one plans a railway, one should think also about ways of bringing industry and people together. One should not think only about providing a railway to take people out of the area and into the City of London to earn vast amounts of money, who then return to their £500,000 houses—

Mr. Tony Banks: And drink champagne.

Ms. Richardson: I doubt whether they do that, but it is not a matter for me.
The London Docklands Railway (Beckton) Bill will provide an eastern extension, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South has said, from Poplar through the areas of Leamouth, the royal docks and Cyprus. I must confess that I should visit Cyprus because I have not seen it and think of the other Cyprus every time that I read about it. It will be interesting to know about it, but my hon. Friends should not tell me now.

Mr. Banks: I must advise my hon. Friend that the weather is not so nice.

Ms. Richardson: Indeed, but I should like to know the origins of the word and whether it has any connections with the country of that name.
Of course we applaud the principle of extending public transport. Opposition Members have a good record of opposing restrictions on transport throughout the whole period since the war. We have fought the closure of railways and stations and have tried to argue that people need transport, whether by rail, underground or bus, not only in London but throughout the country. However, we must consider closely piecemeal suggestions such as those before us.
I am sorry to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South so often, but I am glad that he made such great play in an important part of his speech of the looping through Canning Town, because that is a crucial part that has been missed out. As I understand it, LRT objected to that on the grounds that the cost would be prohibitive. However, one must consider cost and costs. The people of Canning Town will lose out because of the loop. I believe that it is perfectly possible that in the future LRT will have a loop through Canning Town. It would have been much better if it had done so now, so serving far more people and enhancing the transport provision to the City of London and the Isle of Dogs.

Mr. Spearing: An important point about Parliament is involved. Even if the Government deny public inquiries into such matters, is my hon. Friend aware that the private Bill procedure in Committee makes it possible—I am not saying that I believe that this should happen—that if the Committee were so persuaded by my constituents and the petitions presented that the railway should only be built provided that it goes by Canning Town, under the customary procedures that would probably persuade the House that that should be so. Therefore, all is not yet lost.

Ms. Richardson: I am not suggesting it is, or, at least I hope I am not. However, one does have doubts, because LRT has been antagonistic to the Canning Town loop and has been willing to ignore all the pressures put on it and one wonders whether, in spite of all the petitioning, LRT will listen. I think that if we had still had the GLC, it would have listened, if it had been so stupid as to make the mistakes in the first place.
We must not forget the people on the Isle of Dogs who may well not have the transport provision to which they are entitled because it has not been properly thought out. Whenever I sit down at home to watch "EastEnders"—it is not often, but otherwise I video it—at 2 o'clock on Sundays when the omnibus edition is shown, I think of the docklands light railway and wish that it would run there and bring more transport to the area.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Is she aware that Albert square, on which "EastEnders" is based, is located in my constituency of Newham, North-West? I hope that when my hon. Friend watches that programme she thinks fondly not only of Newham, North-West, but of the hon. Member who has the job of representing that constituency in this House.

Ms. Richardson: I thought that it was based on Albert square —it is a natural thing for anyone to think. When the picture comes up of the Isle of Dogs at 2 o'clock on a Sunday, I shall remember what my hon. Friend has said. Indeed, in future I shall remember my hon. Friend as the hon. Member for Walford.
The Bill seeks only to help better-off people moving into the development area rather than existing residents — many of whom are very poor. The Bill will do nothing to enhance their prospects. I have severe apprehensions and reservations about how the Bill will help the borough of Newham and the future safety, happiness and welfare of the residents.
I should like to spend some time underlining what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said about safety. I am extremely concerned for everyone who travels on the docklands light railway and I am especially concerned for the safety of women travellers. I have not used the railway myself. I will try it although I am rather apprehensive after what I have heard. Many women have come to me to say how apprehensive they feel going into a totally uncrewed station, how lonely and frightened they feel, despite the fact that some of them are tough characters and able to look after themselves. When I am driving to Barking, I pass Tower Hill station as I drive on to the highway. That station has an escalator that always reminds me of some kind of futuristic Hyatt hotel, such as the one in San Francisco.

Mr. Leighton: It is the only escalator on the docklands light railway.

Ms. Richardson: That is true, and one wonders what will happen if disabled people wish to use the docklands light railway.
As stations become vandalised and alarm buttons are destroyed—that happens, like it or not—I am extremely worried that problems will arise for women, men and elderly people. My right hon. Friend referred to the fact that there is only one video screen and that it is operated on a cyclical basis to cover all the stations. The station person must oversee the workings of all the other stations and the trains, and also look after the safety of the passengers.
Let us suppose that that person has eyes in the back of his or her head: what happens if he or she sees somebody being attacked? We do not know what the provision is for calling the police. Are there railway police? I hope that my neighbour, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) can tell me that the railway police will be quickly on the scene if they are called.
One cannot describe the docklands light railway as a "one-person train"; it is a "no-person train". It is amazing that we have reached the point when we are willing to dispense with people who are willing to look after other people.

Mr. Tony Banks: If the train is operated by no one, the logical conclusion is that it should have no one on it. That would answer my hon. Friend's concern about the safety factor. Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that, because of the pressures of costs, it is the safety margin that is always cut? Despite what the Minister says from time to time, the travelling public do not like one-man-operated buses. They certainly do not like the idea of having no one crewing a train.
When the docklands light railway was opened, there were many difficulties. Indeed, the official opening had to be delayed because of safety problems. I would like my hon. Friend to dwell a little longer on the peculiar problems faced by women travelling at night on public transport in London when there is an insufficient number of people to guarantee their safety.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may comment on the Beckton light railway, but not on the general conditions in London.

Ms. Richardson: The docklands light railway is the worst example in London—and the rest are pretty poor —in terms of safety and having staff around. If you will allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should just like to recall one occasion when I happened to be at the station at Birmingham international airport to catch a train that was leaving at 12.30 am. I got on to that station and could not believe that I could not find a single person. There were three or four platforms and no trains, although a train was due to arrive. There was no one about. I stood there for 25 minutes and I was terrified. I do not know what I would have done if anyone had come up, but to stand in that ghostly atmosphere was horrible. It must be equally horrible on the docklands light railway.
Women face safety problems because they must travel to and from work. Since the Government deregulated women's working hours, they are subject to the whim of their employees. Now many more women must take buses or trains late at night. Those women who travel on the docklands light railway may be forced to travel at such hours.
Another safety factor about which we should be worried is the fact that the railway is open all night. Goodness only knows what could happen if someone was dragged in or left at one of those stations. I hope that, when the time comes, the hon. Member for Ilford, South will discuss the policing of that railway.

Mr. Spearing: Is my hon. Friend aware that, before the docklands light railway officially opened, my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) and I were invited to ride on it? Unfortunately, the design of the doors is such that my hon. Friend was assaulted by them. Those doors swing inwards and that causes some difficulty. On the Underground, the doors slide open horizentally. Even if improved stock is delivered for the Beckton extension, that will cause some difficulty because, unless the whole system works in one way, people travelling in the older type of car—where the doors swing across and can hit someone—may not be aware of the problem and may be hurt. The improved stock might only be used on some parts of the railway. It appears that, because of too little finance, we are now left with that hazard.

Ms. Richardson: When corners are cut, safety is always the first thing to go. When corners are cut in the name, not of cost-cutting, but of an improved railway, the only thing one gets is a feeling that people will not be safe.
A year or so ago, I was invited to look around Mansion House station and consider safety conditions there. I commented on the lack of alarm buttons in that station. I was shown the videos in a control room. There were four of them and one man was supposed to look at them all the time. I do not know how—he did not have four eyes. The videos showed different parts of the station. We must seriously consider whether it is right to replace people by videos and television screens. It is much easier for people to complain to, scream to or be seen by someone standing on the station than it is to wonder, while being attacked, whether the television screen is picking up the incident. Probably it is not.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney also mentioned the people who live in the vicinity. In the places in which the light railway is elevated, people in the trains and stations can look down on people's houses, which is amazing. When I go across the M40 at Hammersmith on the elevated section I can almost see into people's flats, because the road is so high. I always think that that is an intrusion into people's lives, even when the flats and houses are some distance away. In the case of the railway, I understand that children have already thrown down things that have hit windows in neighbouring flats and houses. That is an unwarranted intrusion. The promoter of the Bill — London Regional Transport —should examine more carefully the problem of the privacy of people who have nothing to do with the railway but happen to live by the station.
In addition to LRT's responsibility for station safety, we are also thinking about the responsibility of the borough of Newham for the surrounding approach areas to the station. The roads outside, the corners and the approachways will not be the responsibility of the railway. I assume they will be the responsibility of the borough of Newham. When building a new station, one must consider how best to design and landscape it. Its approaches must be safe, and there should not be nasty corners when one

leaves or approaches the station in which someone could be attacked. Why should Newham have to pick up the tab? It is already hard pressed and should not have to pick up the tab for what should not be its financial responsibility. The whole matter has been badly thought out, and I echo what has been said about the demise of the GLC and of a London strategic authority that would have been able to take into account all these wider implications, instead of doing the whole thing in a piecemeal fashion.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend has put her finger on an important point. Although I believe the London borough of Newham is well represented in the House by its Members of Parliament, all three of us would agree that it is not the most beautiful spot on earth. One reason for that is that it is a way through for large numbers of commuters. The A13, running right through the borough, brings many problems to the people and council of Newham, who have to try to keep the place tidy and presentable. The docklands light railway, as my hon. Friend rightly said, will bring similar problems. Does she not feel that more consideration should be given to the sort of problems that boroughs such as Newham and Barking experience because they straddle major routes into and out of London?

Ms. Richardson: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West will agree that, in the past year, the A 13 has been a pain—

Mr. Banks: Because of the work being done on it?

Ms. Richardson: I am sure the improvements to the road will be welcome when they are finished, but a journey from Westminster to Barking, which used to take half an hour, now takes an hour. The delays on the A13 are unprecedented. I cannot prophesy that all these problems would be cured, but they would be improved if they were thought out by a strategic authority in cooperation with London Regional Transport.

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend makes the point. The great traffic problems around Bow church have been caused by the need to strengthen the road and bridge over the railway. Unless we show ourselves capable of integrating the necessary planning into our transport system, what is seen as an improvement in one mode of transport only leads to a great deterioration in another. That is a crazy way of running a transport system.

Ms. Richardson: My hon. Friend has wound up my speech for me very well by pointing that out.
As I have said before endlessly, the whole way in which these proposals and the extensions to them started —including the done that we are debating tonight, has been piecemeal — hopping from stage to stage. How much better it would have been if a bit of forward planning had been done, taking into account the problems and benefits that might come to various members of the communities that will use the railway, both passing through and inside the constituency through which it runs. I hope these points will be closely explored in Committee and that, when the Bill emerges from Committee, it will be a fitter one than it is now.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: In some sense I feel a little out of place in the debate, being the only northerner to be invited to it. However, I was drawn to it by the news that


my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is the Member of Parliament for "EastEnders". I feel disappointed about that, because every Sunday I have been in the habit of sitting my children in front of "EastEnders" to make sure that they learn about life as it would be lived by a typical Cabinet Minister or Minister of State and so that they can experience what the south of England is all about. I have a little more familiarity with the docklands railway, because ever since I came down south to the Houses of Parliament it has been only with the greatest difficulty that I have been able to persuade anyone from the south of England that I am not the hon. Member for Stratford. To that extent, I feel I am well into the system.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) on introducing the Bill, and I join my hon. Friends in thanking him for accepting their amendment. That will greatly ease the passage of the Bill, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise the benefits of that judicious move.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) who, as active and assiduous constituency Members, have given up their evening to be here to put forward their case and, in the process, to educate those of us who do not have their detailed local knowledge.
As the official Opposition, we welcome light rapid transport—light rail—systems in all our urban areas. As a general principle, we think that the more of them there are, the better, especially in London. In so far as the light rail system takes people off the roads and eases the transport problems of the conurbations, it is welcome and will receive the approbation of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
It is necessary to be critical, or at least less than complimentary, about the way in which this proposal and proposals for the whole network have been carried out. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) has already drawn to the attention of the House the lack of an adequate strategic planning function for transport and for other services in Greater London since the demise of the Greater London council. That means that in docklands and the adjacent areas there is no proper mechanism for resolving the relationship between the road and rail systems. That is a curious matter, and it has been touched on by other hon. Members.
The Government are not prepared adequately to fund the public transport system for the ordinary people of Docklands and slightly beyond, but they are prepared to fund the road system so that private motorists and transport systems can operate with funds provided by the Exchequer and ultimately by the taxpayer. That is a matter for regret, and it is not just due to some basic ideological divide, but has consequences for the type of service that is provided by light rapid transit systems. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barking have spoken about some of the consequences that will begin to show after a time.
I draw to the attention of the House the matter of unstaffed stations which is not dissimilar to the situation on the Metro system in Newcastle. One of the problems is that some stations are not staffed, except by somebody at the other end of a video link. In the event of an energency or, even more trivially, vandalism, there cannot

be a quick response. The system is suffering to the tune of about £1 million a year in trying to overcome the results of vandalism. That is a high cost to have to pay for lack of staff.
The King's Cross disaster shows the potential dangers of such a system. When the Minister is winding up, he should comment on that because he has a responsibility for the safety of the travelling public and for seeing whether the system is as safe as it should be.
If we fund the system on the cheap, if we do not put in the required level of investment, and if we do not design first-class public transport, we will face the consequences that have been seen in other areas. I understand that at a triangle junction the train has to slow down to about five miles per hour in order to get round an over-tight curve. That is rather curious in the light of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South who talked about the extension at Canning Town and whether the Canning Town link should come in. The promoters of the Bill said that it could not be justified because of the loss of time and speed on the system. It is ironic to use that as an argument when parts of the system have been designed in that way because sufficient investment was not put in. A great deal of time is lost on those parts of the system where there are already over-tight curves.

Mr. Spearing: Those curves could literally be looked at during the examination of the Bill to see what constraints they impose on the frequency of service. I expressed surprise that there was not a forecast of less than four-minute intervals on the stretch that we are talking about. It is envisaged that there will be three units in a train, whereas at the moment there is one. The restriction on that curve and on the various junctions may well make it impossible to run more frequently. I do not know whether that is the case. My hon. Friend has pinpointed one of the "money-saving" areas that may put a restriction on the service on the route that we are talking about.

Mr. Lloyd: I am sure that the important point raised by my hon. Friend will be addressed in Committee. It also raises an important point about the way in which the transport system throughout London will be run if the LRT system is to be a model for docklands and for its extension to the immediate areas.
I was intrigued by the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney about the problem of noise. That seems to be a consequence of the system and the way in which it has been designed. It raises the very real question whether such a system would have been acceptable if a different mechanism from the development corporation had been involved in its design. One wonders how things would have turned out if local authorities had been involved in consultation and negotiation. I do not know about the negotiations between the London Docklands development corporation and the local authorities, whether potential noise pollution was one of the issues raised, or whether attempts were made to resolve that problem.

Mr. Tony Banks: It appears that the then deputy chairman of the London Docklands development corporation said that an extension would be built without steel structures. Perhaps the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) could comment on that. Obviously


one would want to rely on the word of the then deputy chairman of the LDDC, but, of course, one realises that not all that glistens is necessarily gold.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend invites the hon. Member for Ilford, South to comment on that. Perhaps it is better for me to throw that ball into his court than to engage in what is clearly a London debate in which my intervention would not be totally welcome.

Mr. Spearing: One matter that is germane to the light railway and also of national importance is that my hon. Friend says that this might be a precedent for the future. Does he realise that if we wish to extend across the river to Thamesmead or Greenwich, or even perhaps to Lewisham, from the Isle of Dogs, as some people advocate, the method of financing that is being made available for this line might not be possible for those extensions? Perhaps the Minister will address that point in his winding-up speech.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend raises a point of fundamental importance and it is one on which I was about to speak. His intervention serves as a suitable introduction. The manner in which this system is financed is of interest not only to London, but to the whole of the country. In connection with my own city of Manchester, a light rail Bill is to come before the House in this Session. Similar Bills for the west midlands and west Yorkshire are also to be considered. One is to be considered for Bristol, although in that case it will be a privately funded system.
The means of funding and the way in which die Department of Transport intends to treat the relationship between the public and private sectors are matters of considerable importance. What happens in this scheme may well set a precedent for all schemes. The proposals for Greater Manchester are relevant to the Bill, because there is considerable concern about the consequences of the Department of Transport's position. The Department seems to be insisting on the introduction of large amounts of private capital for the Greater Manchester scheme. I do not ask the Minister to go down the Greater Manchester track, but I ask him to tell us about the ground rules for this development. What are the funding consequences for this development? Will this scheme establish some kind of precedent for LRT systems within London and, more generally, for systems throughout the rest of the country? The Minister owes the House a clear explanation about departmental policy on that issue.
Opposition Members believe that adequate funding of the public transport system serves the public interest, not only on safety but as to a consideration of the type of transport system needed and who will benefit from it. A public transport system should serve the needs of those who live in a constituency such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South, rather than to get people in and out of Newham and to wherever else they want to go for the rest of the journey. We want transport systems designed not only for yuppies and those outside the area, but to provide genuine access for people in the community.
The debate on the difference between the public and private sectors is of fundamental importance. On the Canning Town loop, where there was a cost incentive not to put the loop in, the private sector solution was not to

put in the loop, but the public sector considered that the people of the community would be better served by having that loop.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend is right to point out the need for transport systems that serve people in the east end, in particular, Newham, rather than the yuppies, for whom we know the whole system is designed. Is my hon. Friend aware that painted on a bridge over the Burdett road is a slogan that says "Toffs out", which aptly sums up the attitude of the people in the east end to the characters who are moving into the area?

Mr. Lloyd: The developers of the rail system and docklands ought to consider seriously the disenchantment among ordinary people in the community. If they believe that the systems are designed not for them but for outsiders, it will make for the worst possible future for social development and fundamentally undermine all the Government's promises about the benefits of the development for London.

Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend realise that the behaviour of the promoters and possibly of the Government—they may take a different view from the promoters; the Minister may say that he is neutral on the Canning Town loop—is highly symbolic? Not only did they cut out Canning Town, which is the hub of east London, but they did it on the basis of figures which may turn out to be specious. It is not just a question of not wanting to serve the people. When we want to serve them, the Government produce figures which may not stand up. We shall see what happens in Committee.

Mr. Lloyd: If the figures do not stand up, the position will be totally different, and I hope that the promoters will reconsider it. I hope that the Minister will tell the House that he is not neutral on the Canning Town loop and that he believes that public transport should serve the needs of the community.

Mr. Tony Banks: Do not hold your breath.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend injects a note of scepticism into the debate. Having listened to the Minister on many occasions, I believe that on the law of averages he will come down in the interests of the travelling public rather than commercial exploitation. Perhaps tonight will be the lucky night.

Mr. Banks: I bet my hon. Friend believes in Santa Claus, too.

Mr. Lloyd: I look forward to a visit from Santa Claus, were he to bring an adequate transport system to Greater Manchester. Fortunately, Santa Claus can rely on his own transport system. He does not have to rely on a road transport system that has suffered from under-investment.

Mr. Banks: He comes but once a year, rather like the No. 25 bus.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend tempts me too far into Christmas analogies. Those issues, which bring to the fore the choice between an adequate publicly funded transport system and a private transport system, are central to the success of the Bill and of the light rail system in docklands. I hope that the Minister will give us full details of what the Government and the Department propose to do. I hope he will say that funding will come from the public sector and that, when the choice is made between public and


private funding, the private sector will have to meet the most stringent conditions to ensure not only the safety of the travelling public but that the resources are adequate for the transport system and the public do not have to wait some miles away from the line wondering why they have been cut off. The Minister has a responsibility to give an answer to the important issues rightly raised by my hon. Friends.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I am pleased tonight to be able to speak on behalf of the Government in support of the Bill to allow the construction of an eastern extension to the docklands light railway. The Second Reading was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), for which I am sure the House is grateful.
The docklands light railway is a bold and imaginative project, as has been said in the debate. It makes use of both new technology and new operating attitudes. It not only provides a new link to areas which have been poorly served by the existing public transport network in the past, but must also be seen as a crucial factor in the regeneration of the docklands.
The initial railway opened to the public at the end of August and, despite some technical problems, it is rapidly becoming an important and accepted part of the London transport scene. The Government's commitment to the initial railway was the catalyst for an upsurge in business confidence in the area, bringing major new development to the Isle of Dogs. We now have development on an unprecedented scale taking place at Canary Wharf and the developers have agreed to contribute £68 million of the £150 million costs of upgrading the initial railway and extending it to Bank in the heart of the City. Work is well in hand on this project which will link the DLR into the existing Underground network and offer a much improved service to passengers.
The links provided by the initial railway and the City extension between Bank, Tower Hill, Stratford and the Isle of Dogs means that the one remaining area suitable for major development in the docklands, the royal docks, lies beyond the present reach of the railway. The royal docks, as the House knows, is an area equivalent in size to the west end and the City of London, and has tremendous development potential. It represents the largest single area of docklands in line for regeneration under the LDDC's programme. The Government have given their approval to the future strategy for the royal docks proposed by the LDDC, which will turn nearly 700 acres of derelict land into a new employment, retailing, leisure and residential centre for London.
An extension of the docklands light railway from Poplar to Beckton is seen as crucial to the success of this exciting development by providing a fast and frequent link to the rest of London. Just as the initial railway has sparked development in the Isle of Dogs, so the eastern extension will help to revitalise the royal docks area. It is, moreover, not only business which will benefit from such an extension. The development in the royal docks will provide 7,000 new homes and some 48,000 jobs, and the railway will also serve the developing communities in the Beckton area.

Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mitchell: I was about to refer to the points made by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), so perhaps he will allow me to make that reference. I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman attacked the way in which the LDDC is handling the planning and development. The Government's decision to establish the LDDC has led to a rapid transformation in the docklands. The success speaks for itself. As the pace of the regeneration increases, it will provide enormous benefits for existing residents, as well as others.
The scale of present and projected achievements would have been unimaginable without the LDDC. I recall very well visits that I have made to that area in the past, where it was assumed that dereliction was inevitable and would continue in the future. We now see a massive revival brought about as a result of the Government's initiative in that area.

Mr. Spearing: I am sorry that the Minister has not realised the case that Opposition Members have against the LDDC, if not against the Bill. He has shown that by his reference to "regeneration". Of course there is regeneration of the area, but not of the communities. Otherwise, the 48,000 jobs would be designed for east London as it is and not, as Canary wharf might be, the beginning of the end of the east London community. Apparently the Minister does not understand that.
How can people believe the development is for them when an elementary point like the Canning Town loop —which is for them—is denied by the LDDC and the promoters of the Bill? That is the proof of the pudding. It appears that that would not be more expensive and would not add more than a minute and a half to travelling time.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman referred to the need for 48,000 jobs designed for east London "as it is". As so often, the hon. Gentleman is looking backwards rather than forwards to the opportunities. The reality is that growth of employment is a fragile plant. It is difficult to plant and it is difficult to make it grow and succeed. It has not been successful in many parts of this country and elsewhere in the world even though immense resources have been poured in. In this case, very substantial progress is being made. In many cases, it is not a matter of jobs designed for the skills of yesterday. It is not a matter of the regeneration of dock work in the area or the regeneration of other established skills. However, jobs can be and will be created and they will have a tremendous effect on the prosperity of the whole area and not just benefit those who take the new jobs and are new residents.

Mr. Tony Banks: I do not know whether the growth of employment is "a fragile plant". I think it is rather like a triffid. It is a non-existent plant in this country despite all the cosmetic working of the unemployment statistics. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has made is that we are not trying to look back. Many of the people in the east end, living in what my hon. Friend described as the derelict docks area, are unskilled or semi-skilled. The new jobs coming to the area do not match those skills or lack of skills. Is the Minister prepared to say that there will be massive retraining for the people of Newham so that they can take advantage of the so-called 48,000 jobs—which we will believe when we see?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We had better stick to the railway.

Mr. Mitchell: I will resist the temptation to spell out all the schemes that the Manpower Services Commission and the Department of Employment will deploy for the purposes referred to by the hon. Member.
The Government set several conditions last year when we gave approval to London Regional Transport to lay the Bill before Parliament. We said that we would support the Bill on Second Reading only if we were satisfied that the cost of construction could be met without any additional public expenditure in any year and that there would be no significant risk that any of the costs would fall as a burden on LRT.
We are now supporting the Bill on the basis that the railway will be paid for from the higher land values accruing to the LDDC which the provision of the railway will generate. The LDDC's evaluation of that method of financing shows that the money raised in that way should comfortably cover the costs of constructing the railway.
The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) raised a wider issue. I concur with his view about the potential of light rail. The docklands light railway will lead a considerable field. As the hon. Gentleman said, there are already plans afoot in Greater Manchester for a similar development. He trespassed gently, and tiptoed on the edge of being out of order—I am sure that you would not have allowed him to cross that line, Mr. Deputy Speaker—when he asked about private investment in the Greater Manchester area.
We do not believe that it is right to call on taxpayers and ratepayers to pay the full cost when private investment may be available to avoid the unnecessary expenditure of a large amount of public money. My philosophical difference with the hon. Member for Stretford is that, for some reason that I have not yet been able to comprehend, he regards spending public money as a virility symbol. I do not. I seek to protect the public purse—the taxpayer and ratepayer—wherever possible if I can get that money and the necessary resources from the private sector. We have achieved that with the docklands light railway. Massive increases in land values will enable the cost of the docklands light railway to be met without a call on taxpayers or ratepayers.
The hon. Member for Stretford also raised—

Mr. Spearing: In a calmer atmosphere, will the Minister tell us how that will be achieved? I referred to it earlier, in case he has forgotten. I hope that he will tell us now—or guarantee to tell us later—how that mechanism will work. That could be very important for local conditions.

Mr. Mitchell: I think that I would rather not seek to spell out the detail tonight.

Mr. Spearing: Why not?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman suggested that I might give him fuller information at a later stage. I would like to do it that way, because I can then be sure of being accurate in describing the details of what is happening. It is sufficient to say that the provision of the docklands light railway is enhancing land values. That will enable the LDDC to sell land at a highly enhanced value and that enhancement will be the basis on which the project can be funded. I will spell out the process in detail later with refinements that I would not be competent to describe to the hon. Gentleman's satisfaction tonight. I do not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman by guessing at the detail.

However, the broad principle is as I have described. The enhancement of land values will enable the railway to be paid for without a call on public funds.

Mr. Spearing: I want to state that this is bang in order. I want to refer to the precedent of the funding of the railway and this is the right use of the Second Reading in a kind of semi-Committee stage of the procedure. I thank the Minister for his courtesy and await the details with interest.
I infer from what the hon. Gentleman says—I do not want him to answer the question, because I understand his position—that it would be possible for the funding of the railway now to be made not directly from the developers who may be given planning permission for various projects, but from the resources of the LDDC which may accrue from the increased land values. I see that the Minister is nodding. I am grateful to him for using the words that he has used, because I feel that the matter is of some significance, with implications not only for the docklands light railway but for a national funding of transport of the type that the Government may have in mind for other parts of London and elsewhere.

Mr. Mitchell: I was about to say something about that. I have already referred to the reference by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) to Greater Manchester. There are also proposals in the Bristol area for a scheme which may well be financed entirely privately, and that again will be an interesting development. We are seeing the gradual re-emergence of a feature of the 19th century, when the private sector financed massive amounts of transport infrastructure without having to turn to taxpayers and ratepayers for the necessary resources.
This is an uncertain area. However, we are considering what is the right way forward for Manchester, and are watching the Avon proposal with interest.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Minister answer a point of philosophy? What is the difference between investing in a public transport system such as London Regional Transport and investing in the roads? Why should one be supported exclusively by the private sector, and the other by the public sector?
Let me ask a more important question, which has implications both for docklands and more widely. Is the Minister saying specifically that the only public transport systems that will develop are those that can be funded by private-sector capital?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House would be well advised to defer any debate about general methods of financing transport systems, and stick to one Bill at a time. Can we get back to Beckton?

Mr. Mitchell: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Let me say en passant that philosophically there is no issue between roads and rail. There is, however, the practical problem that we have not found a way for those enjoying enhanced land values as a result of a road being built to contribute towards its cost. Equally, those who suffer a drop in value do not receive a contribution.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I believed that public transport should in future be developed only where it would be paid for by the private sector. That is certainly not the Government's position. The Government feel that, where there is a need for public transport, that need must be defined; subsequently, the question arises of how to pay


for it. It is, of course, right and proper that taxpayers and ratepayers should be sheltered from having to fork out if it is possible to secure private resources to achieve the same end.

Mr. Banks: I am intrigued by the philosophy that the Minister is spelling out this evening. Will he tell me why—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are running into precisely the difficulty that I foresaw: we are having a more general debate about financing methods of transport. That is not the matter before the House this evening. We are discussing the London Docklands Railway (Beckton) Bill, and I think that we should stick to it.

Mr. Mitchell: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing myself to trespass on your generosity and follow the hon. Member for Stretford down the byways of Manchester and into other areas, such as the philosophical differences between us, which I shall not continue to pursue.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of resources and safety. He did so in a responsible and reasonable manner, and I can give him the assurances that he seeks. There will be no cutting of corners on safety. However, while the hon. Gentleman's remarks were reasonable and responsible, that is not an attribute that anyone would apply to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who made an intervention that I greatly resent, implying that the Government were in some undefined way responsible for starving LRT of resources to the extent that safety was imperilled. That is entirely without foundation. Now is not the time to debate the matter; I would be out of order to do so. However, I have to say that the hon. Gentleman's remarks were misleading, wrong and inaccurate, and that his charges are completely unfounded.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) helpfully pointed out a number of detailed matters about the route and access to stations, not only on his own behalf but for others. These are matters for the later stages of the Bill, and I am sure that the opportunity will be taken to consider those points carefully. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) made another point, hut I think that in answering him I would be straying too far into a philosophical debate. I hope to answer him on another occasion.
There are a number of petitioners against the Bill, and they will have an opportunity to present their objections to the Select Committee. The Government do not object to the terms of the instruction to the Committee that has been tabled by the hon. Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), for Newham, North-West and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). The Committee will be in a better position than we are tonight to examine in detail the issues involved and the other matters that have been raised by petitioners, and it will have the added advantage of hearing expert evidence.
I recommend that the Bill be given a Second Reading and allowed to proceed, in the usual way, to Committee for detailed consideration.

Mr. Ron Leighton: I shall not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, for two reasons.

First, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) has accepted the instruction in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and myself. Secondly, we are not opposed to extending the railway to Beckton. We are in favour of it because we want a better railway.
Our main criticism is that the railway is most inadequate. Many people have called the DLR a toy railway. I have even heard it called a Mickey Mouse railway. It was graciously opened by the Queen, but when Her Majesty sat in the train it would not move. She was not amused. The ceremony was a debacle. I cannot think of a more fitting opening for this railway. It is the sort of railway that one might see in Disneyland. In fact, it is not a railway at all—it is an elevated tram. I do not want the House to think that I have anything against trams; they were a very good form of transport. When I have travelled abroad I have been to some cities that have excellent tram services. Their trams look more like a railway than this one.

Mr. Tony Banks: I share my hon. Friend's affection for trams. The transport planners made a major error when they removed them from London's streets. Did my hon. Friend ever do what I used to do—put a penny on the tramline so that the tram went over it, or did he worry about getting his bike caught in the tramrails? It used to frighten me to death when I was a child.

Mr. Leighton: I did not put my pennies on the line because I had a rather deprived childhood and did not have very many pennies. I found safer things to do with my pennies than to attempt to derail trams. However, I did have a great affection for the trams.
Our criticism of the railway is that it was inadequate to start with and is proving so now. I am certain that it will be shown to be inadequate in the future and that we shall have to rebuild and strengthen it, which will cost so much that it would have been better to build it properly in the first place. It is a false economy for the public purse, which the Minister claims to safeguard.
I have never heard a speech from a Minister quite like the one that we just heard. It was an astonishing speech. I know that the Minister is not responsible for the Bill, but we expect Ministers to do their homework and to know something about the provisions under discussion —particularly their financing. When the Minister was asked questions about the financing of the railway — this peculiar, unprecedented and unique method of financing —we were given no adequate answers. I took down two words. The Minister said, "I guess". I have never heard a Minister come to the Dispatch Box and deal in guesses.

Mr. David Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Leighton: I have one more rude thing to say about the Minister, and he might care to hear that before he responds. He guessed at the answer to the question about financing. When he was pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) he said, "Well, I am not competent to answer." That will be seen in Hansard. I have heard many incompetent Ministers, but I have never heard a Minister admit that he is incompetent to deal with the matter under debate. Is that not astonishing? It seems to set the tone for the whole subject.

Mr. David Mitchell: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman misunderstood my point. I am not quite sure how much


detail the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) wanted about the method of financing. I said that I did not want to guess at the details. It would be wrong for me to make guesses about details with which I am not familiar and which do not affect my Department. They relate to the activities of the Department of the Environment, which will ensure the raising of the money through the London Docklands development corporation.
I described to the hon. Gentleman the basic principle governing the financing of the proposal. Because of the arrival of the docklands light railway—this started even before its arrival—the value of land in the possession of the LDDC is increasing very rapidly. That land will be sold, leased or otherwise disposed of at hugely enhanced values, and those enhanced sums will be used to pay for the building of the railway. That spells out to the hon. Gentleman the basic principle, without any guessing or uncertainty. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman wants more details than that. I should be guessing if I gave him more details. No doubt he will wish to be fair and recognise that that is not an unreasonable position for me to adopt.

Mr. Leighton: I am grateful for that explanation. In a sense, the plot thickens, because the Minister has told us that his Department is not responsible. Normally the Minister dealing with a Bill comes from the Department that is responsible.

Mr. Mitchell: Either the hon. Gentleman is going out of his way to be unreasonable, or he has misunderstood the position. The LDDC will pay the bill. It will hand the money over to LRT. LRT is part of my responsibility and I will answer any questions concerned with that aspect of the matter. However, the precise details of the way in which the LDDC will carry through the principle that I have described—I think reasonably fully—to the House, is a matter for the Department of the Environment, to which the LDDC is answerable. I am content to deal with any aspects arising from LRT's promotion of the Bill—unless it is more appropriate that they be addressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) —from LRT's side of the financing of the provisions or from its plans for development. Those are proper matters for the Department of Transport. The necessary funds will be provided to LRT from the LDDC. That money will come from the enhanced land values in the way that I have described. It is not reasonable for the hon. Gentleman to expect me to go further than that.
If the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South want more detailed information about how the LDDC will realise that enhanced value, that is a matter to address to Ministers in the Department of the Environment. I shall be happy to secure additional information if it is relevant to the Bill and if the hon. Gentleman wants it, but it would be a little unfair, and that is not what he intends, to expect me to go further than that.

Mr. Leighton: I would not like the Minister to think that I was unreasonable. I am well known for being one of the most reasonable Members in the House. In fact, I suffer from reasonableness to a fault. I shall move temporarily from the finances, because I can see that I have touched something of a sore point.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: rose—

Mr. Spearing: rose—

Mr. Leighton: I shall give way to my hon. Friends in a moment. I will just finish this point.
It is a point that interests me, and I will accept the Minister's offer to write to me or get his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to write to me. I am very interested in this novel, unique and, as I understand it, unprecedented method of financing a railway. I would certainly like to know the details and the mechanics of how this is done. I shall return later in my remarks to the, to use the Minister's phrase, philosophy of the financing of this scheme.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for further pursuing a point which, perhaps unwisely, I did not press enough earlier in the debate. The Minister is one of the more reasonable Ministers that I know, and I compliment him on that, but is it not clear that he is in a complete difficulty? Because of the urban development corporation set-up, which goes across all the hitherto habitual and agreed internal workings of this country, the Minister cannot provide the money. It is provided by this animal, the LDDC, and the Minister has confirmed the point that I made earlier. So it is an evolving Government policy on transport and inner cities that we have now stumbled on in the course of dealing with a practical Bill. That is the difficulty in which the Government find themselves. No wonder the Minister carefully said that he would reply to me by letter—they have not properly worked it out.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Perhaps my hon. Friend would cast his mind back to the time when the Greater London council ran London Transport. If London Transport at that time had proposed a major investment, it would have known in the minutest detail what it and the GLC wanted to do. With every other transport authority throughout the length and breadth of the country the Department of Transport wants to know in minute detail how the money is to be raised and used, but when we have the private sector involved we are now told that as long as it comes up with the ready cash it can do what it wants. Are we not going down a dangerous road?

Mr. Leighton: We are indeed, and the more we apply our minds to the matter the more disconcerting and worrying it becomes. It is this curious beast, the LDDC, over which there appears to be no democratic control and which is not accountable. Even the Minister says that he is not responsible for "it", that "it" does these things, and that he will have to ask other people in other Departments to supply the information. I see that he is nodding. I understand his position, but it is not the usual constitutional position that we are in.

Mr. Spearing: Exactly.

Mr. Leighton: There is another point here. All sorts of promises and assurances were given by the deputy chairman of this strange beast, the LDDC. The deputy chairman had an extremely good reputation in the east end of London. He had a lot of credibility with the community groups and the local authorities because of the courteous and punctilious way in which he responded to letters and queries. He was like an evangelist, selling the LDDC with enthusiasm and gusto which some of us thought might have been worthy of a better cause. He built up his credibility and people accepted his promises. He has gone


now. He was sacked within 24 hours of a rather curious television programme. I did not think that we believed in trial by television in this country, but remarks were made on television and the man was given 10 minutes to resign. There was no chance of a right to reply and no chance to put his side of the story. After all his work, he was sacked.
The Government and the LDDC have acted scandalously and disgracefully. Do those promises now stand up? Who will take the deputy chairman's place? Whoever it is will not be considered very credible by those of us who represent the people of east London. It will not be possible to replace John Mills and fill his boots. Do the promises given by this unaccountable, unelected, authoritarian body count any more?

Mr. Spearing: Is my hon. Friend aware that at a recent meeting of the Docklands Forum—a body of which we should take note, as was emphasised in another place—Mr. John Mills, acting as deputy chairman, discussed at length the problem of noise on the existing docklands railway and its relevance to the new railway? The Secretary of State for the Environment should ensure that the undertakings given by the deputy chairman of the LDDC are maintained.

Mr. Leighton: My hon. Friend is right. I read the minutes of that meeting, in which the deputy chairman admitted that the noise exceeded the levels previously agreed. He said that that was because of the steel construction and he gave an assurance that that type of steel construction would not be used in the Beckton extension.
John Mills, whom many people trusted, has gone. Can we believe his assurances? That is an important question. He said that in Cable street the docklands light railway is noisier than British Rail. That is not how it was supposed to be.
The railway is inadequate. It was built, as the Minister said, to save the public purse. If one builds something second class and inadequate, one must add bits to it. One must rebuild it, which is always much more expensive.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) is here. I do not know whether she knows— she probably does because she keeps her ear to the ground very effectively—that discussions are taking place about adding bits on to the docklands light railway. One of the suggestions being strongly canvassed —it is alleged that decisions have almost been taken, so we shall have another Bill in the near future which will be the fourth on this subject—is to extend the railway to Barking. There is another suggestion to extend the railway under the river to Greenwich and Lewisham.

Mr. Spearing: Who is to pay?

Mr. Leighton: We do not know how we shall pay for this bit, let alone who will pay for extending the railway under the river. Who would benefit from putting a tunnel under the river? It would tax the Minister to say how we could enhance the value of the river.
Cheese-paring has led to all sorts of problems—noisy structures and unstaffed stations. At a time of mass unemployment we should employ people to do something sensible. When we travel on the Underground, there are no staff. The stations are desolate and empty.

Ms. Richardson: And filthy dirty.

Mr. Leighton: My hon. Friend is so right.
I was brought up in a London transport family. When my father left the Grenadier Guards, his first job was as a porter on the London Underground. I do not know whether hon. Members can remember porters. They were the people on every station who used to sweep the platforms, keep them clean and wash them with buckets of water. On some British Rail stations there were even gardens and flowers. Can you remember, Mr. Speaker, when there were waiting rooms with a cheery fire in winter? Can you remember, Mr. Speaker, when there were things called toilets on stations? If people had a long journey, they could relieve themselves on the stations.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am afraid that they still do.

Mr. Leighton: As my hon. Friend points out, the smell and the stink, especially on the Underground, prove that they still do. That is the result of not having any stall.
At the moment the DLR is like a bright new button. It is very attractive. But how long will that be the case if its stations are unstaffed? How long will it be before we get the graffiti and the vandalism? We have the new technology in the form of videos. A video might or might not be able to record what happens. It is cyclical, which I think means that it moves round—now we see it, now we do not. The video can only record a given station at a certain time before it moves round. But even if the video records vandalism, what can he done if there are no staff there? Therefore, cheese-paring is worrying, and the inadequate provision is the result of under-financing, which is a false economy.
Let me return to the question of money. I am seeking to be non-controversial. I do not want to upset the Minister. However, let me address that matter in a gentle way, looking at the philosophy behind it. There is no Government money for the Beckton extension. There is Government money for the roads in exactly the same area —£300 million. Obviously, there is a deep philosophical point behind all this. We have heard the Minister say that it is a philosophical matter. The only philosophy that I can see is that if something is for the private sector, the public purse is open and the Minister is generous — large dollops of public money for roads. When it comes to the public transport system, it is not open. But hang on a minute. The money is there if it goes west. The Minister gave us the figures—£150 million with £68 million being provided by somebody else. That means that he has opened the public purse and taken out £82 million to extend the DLR from Tower Hill to the Bank. I should like explained to me the philosophy behind opening the public purse if a development goes west, but shutting it if it goes east.

Mr. David Mitchell: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman cannot comprehend the simple fact that the public purse is making up a shortfall of what is not attainable from the private sector. In the case of the western extension, a certain sum was obtained from the developers of Canary Wharf, and the public sector made up the difference. In the case of the eastern extension, there is no need for the public purse to make up the difference, because the entire cost will be met by the enhanced land values, through the LDDC. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman found something philosophically difficult about that, but I find it simple and straightforward. Where we can get the private sector to pay, we do so, and where we cannot, we turn to the public purse. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that


is wrong but wants to turn it the other way round, he is supporting his hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), who believes that public spending is relatively simple.

Mr. Leighton: I wonder whether the Government have been conned. I wonder whether the Government have stood the three-card trick. There are people in London who know how to work the three-card trick, and perhaps the gullible and naive Ministers have fallen for it. Who can say whether the people who have been willing to put up the £68 million were not willing to put up more? May I make an analogy? I heard Lord King say that he was willing to pay only £140 million to take over British Caledonian and make a monopoly. Then, when there was some competition from SAS, which is one of those half-public, half-private BP-type operations, he suddenly upped his offer to £200 million. Who is to say that the people who make huge fortunes out of Canary Wharf, which was the equivalent to building a second City of London, would not have put up that money?
The Government seem to look more sympathetically and generously, and their hand does not falter so much when it reaches for the public purse, when the money is going to the City of London, where people get salaries in telephone numbers, and where most of them vote Conservative and go home to areas such as Surrey and Sussex, the stockbroker belt. However, when the money is going east, to Beckton or down to Canning Town—

Mr. Spearing: It does not go to Canning Town.

Mr. Leighton: When it was proposed that it would go to Canning Town, when the original railway was suggested —the DLR — various options were put in consultation paper. One of those options was that it should go to Canning Town. When the consultation was held, most responses said that it should go to Canning Town. The people of Canning Town and the people of east London want it, but they are not to have it. I believe that that is a philosophical point which the Minister should take on board. He has been down to the area on several occasions and looked at it. I do not know whether he has spoken to many people there.
There is a lot of tension there, because people see those wonderful new apartments going up. If one has £500,000 to spare one can have one tomorrow. I hope that the Minister is not smiling. That is quite cheap for many of them. An enclave of very rich people are cheek by jowl with the people who live in the most deprived and squalid circumstances. I hope the Minister understands that that is the case. Those people want some benefit from these developments, and if the railway extension leaves them out they will see all the wonderful developments that we keep hearing about. A sum of £2·2 billion of private money has already been attracted into the LDDC area. The royal docks development will attract another £2 billion. Those are huge sums.
All that the people want is a little loop in the railway going to Canning Town. If they do not get it, what will they think about the development? They will have been left outside it. There used to be a saying that they will have missed the bus, but they will have missed the train, because the train will not go to them. They see the yuppies—that is an inelegant term—coming in, but how do they

come in? The railway does not take only east-enders to the City. It carries people from Surrey and Sussex who are earning telephone number salaries in the City. They can either walk from the City to Wapping and the lovely apartments, or they can get the DLR. That happens on the extension to the west and is being financed from the public purse. However, in our area—the derelict area, as the Minister so delightfully called it — there is no public money, so we have an inadequate and second-rate service.
I must not trespass too long on this, but I must speak about Canning Town. Some of us feel strongly about areas such as Canning Town. I hope that Conservative Members do not think that Canning Town is some sort of joke. It is the heart and guts of the east end of London. It withstood the Luftwaffe, was praised during the second world war and had numerous visits from royalty. The people from that area are the salt of the earth.
We were originally told that the station at Canning Town would cost millions. That figure has now been reduced to under £1 million. The local authority has looked at the matter and said that it made a mistake and that the figure would be less than half that. We are told by those who know—London Regional Transport and the LDDC—that the station would serve 2,000 people. Those 2,000 people are represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South. I should like to pay a tribute to my hon. Friend for the vigilance that he has displayed on this matter. He pores over every detail all the time. I know of no one else in the House with a greater knowledge of transport matters. He was a member of the London county council transport committee for many years.
We miss the GLC now. When we consider the whole of the transport system in the east end of London we can see that the roads are overcrowded, and the east London river crossing will disgorge another lot of traffic into the transport system. There is no co-ordinated planning, and that is where we miss the GLC.
What have the Government and LRT got against the 2,000 people in Canning Town? Why can they not have their station? Are they not as good as the people at Bank and Tower Hill? My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South has done more than anyone on this matter. He is right to speak up for those people. I know that he will do so in future, and he will have our support.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am greatly privileged to follow the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). In many ways he has given us an accurate picture of the situation in the east end of London, specifically in the London borough of Newham, which I have the honour to represent with my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-East and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
The Minister was offended by something that I said. To get a spark out of this Minister is a tribute indeed. However, if he was offended by what I said he must understand that I was equally offended by his description of the docks as an area of dereliction. As one of the derelict Members from a derelict area, I can tell him that we strongly object to that. It is not an area of dereliction at all. There are still many jobs in the royal docks. It is not the fault of the people who live there that, because of economic circumstances, jobs deserted them as the port of London moved its activities away from the royal docks.
One of the most depressing and offensive aspects of the work of the London Docklands development corporation is that, in its great capacity to purchase land and thereby rob the people of the east end of their land, it is forcing out or closing down many firms that still operate within docklands. Rather than increasing employment in the docklands area, it is bringing about a net decrease. That is why hon. Members from Newham use such strong words when we hear the Minister give us the old advertiser's hype about what the wonderful LDDC is doing and how many jobs will be created. The Secretary of State plucked a figure out of the air. There do not seem to be any independent surveys or reports that substantiate the exaggerated claims about jobs. By way of intervention, I said to the Minister that the sort of jobs that are being talked about will not be suitable for the presently unemployed people of Newham, Barking and Tower Hamlets.
As you have probably gathered from the debate so far, Mr. Speaker, we are concerned because the DLR does not exist to suit the convenience of the people of the east end. If it were not for the explosions that have occurred within the City and the need to expand out of the City of London, I do not suppose that there would have been much talk about the development of the light railway system. Notwithstanding that, we in the east end are much deprived of amenities, although we are well served by a Labour-controlled council in Newham. Therefore, it will not be the policy of the London borough of Newham, its Members of Parliament or community groups there to oppose the Bill. We are anxious to see that there is the best possible provision in the Bill to ensure that the impact of the railway on existing residents is minimised.
Although many points have been covered in the debate, some have not been covered. I know that the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) wishes to make a few points in about four minutes' time, so I shall not delay the House beyond two more minutes—and a very fast minute has just passed.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South, who has listened most attentively to the points that have been made, will no doubt have registered Opposition Members' great concern about safety aspects with regard to the DLR. We are particularly concerned about the safety aspects of unstaffed stations.
Already at Shadwell, stones have been thrown into nearby residents' houses. A report from the Wapping neighbourhood committee, by the London borough of Tower Hamlest police adviser, serverely criticised many safety aspects at stations. The report stated that alarm buttons are either broken or deactivated because of misuse. Station entrances are not covered by videos. Ticket machines are not located in visible areas. Stations are open all night, thus allowing vandalism, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East mentioned. The report referred also to the aberrant scatalogical behaviour of some passengers who use the stations and the fact that videos are scanned by the same person who is responsible for overseeing the whole operation of the railway from the control room at Poplar. As my hon. Friend said, cameras are operated only on a cyclical basis; there is no constant cover.
We want to make sure that, when the Bill is considered, the lessons that have been learnt up to now are taken into consideration. There is a great deal of concern. The cost pressures that are being exerted not only on this railway

but on London Regional Transport generally are leading to a diminution of safety standards within the whole transport system.
It is unnerving to sit on a train that does not have any staff that one can see. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) has said, it is especially unnerving for women. Anyone who uses the existing railway system, as I have done on several occasions, will notice the absence of women. I am sure that one of the major reasons is that women feel unhappy and unsafe on such a system.
It is remarkable that we talk about cutting staffing levels on public transport, such as buses and railways, but, when it comes to the better class of travel, air travel, a major selling point is the service that the passengers receive. I do not see why a person travelling on a No. 25 bus should not equally be welcomed aboard by a steward who says that he will be travelling from Stratford to Victoria at approximately ground level, who will give the estimated time of arrival, traffic conditions allowing, and then serve refreshments. Indeed, duty-free goods could be offered. In a light-hearted fashion I am trying to say that I do not see why public transport such as buses and railways should continually cut comfort and safety when other forms of transport emphasise those things. I hope that the hon. Member for Ilford, South will at least acknowledge our concerns, especially those about transport safety.

Mr. Neil Thorne: By leave of the House, I should like to try to answer one or two of the points that have been made in this helpful debate. I am sure that many of those points can be considered in much greater detail in Committee, but I should like to deal with one or two now.
The question of the Silvertown loop obviously causes considerable disagreement about its actual cost. the information that I have is that the construction costs would amount to £5·9 million; the additional time factor would involve an extra £2·3 million and the running costs another £4·7 million. Therefore, the total additional cost of fitting in that loop could be—I emphasise "could be" —£12·9 million. I am sure that hon. Members will have the opportunity to explore and compare those figures more in Committee.
There is no suggestion that this is a developers' railway. Other facilities are available to people who live in the Canning Town area. The interchange at Western Gateway with British Rail will be a great help to those people, as will the train and bus facilities that will help those passengers who wish to join the route to move west. Such matters will be dealt with in Committee. Indeed, they have already been considered and there is no question of ignoring the needs of the people in that part of London.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I know that he does not have a lot of time. Although the issues of cost and timing can be argued in Committee, does the hon. Gentleman accept that his interpretation of its not being a developers' railway is riot accepted in east London? If we do not get the Canning Town route, that will be looked on as cocking a snook at the people of east London, and the railway will be interpreted as entirely for developers.

Mr. Thorne: I hope that that will not be the outcome. I am sure that those hon. Members who serve on the Committee will have an opportunity to express themselves then.
I should have liked to go into the question of costs in much greater detail, but time does not permit, other than to say that I understand that the total cost is likely to be about £136 million. It is expected that that sum will be paid by the London Docklands development corporation during the course of the work, so that there will not be any further cost to the taxpayer. The extra value that will accrue to the land owned by the LDDC will enable it to pay that sum of money. That is an important factor, and whether one agrees with that philosophy or not, it is a point that my hon. Friends will appreciate.
I listened with care and interest to the reasoned speech of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). I share his concern regarding noise; indeed, that matter has been raised on a number of occasions. He mentioned light shining into homes and certainly I have had experience of that problem in my constituency as a result of car headlamps and inconsiderate supermarket operators. The right hon. Gentleman also expressed his concern about unmanned stations.
I compliment the people who live in the area where the docklands light railway is based, on the absence of graffiti so far at the stations. The people in the area have behaved extremely responsibly and I commend the people living in the east end for the way in which they have not abused those stations. I hope that that will continue to be the case.
Policing the railway has been mentioned and that will be dealt with on a central basis and from a central control centre. Either the transport police or the Metropolitan police—whoever is in the right location—will be called upon immediately. I believe that their response will be extremely encouraging and that they will be able to deal with whatever arises.
Some hon. Members have mentioned the need for videos. Certainly the train captains on the docklands light railway have been extremely successful and I believe that they are appreciated by the passengers. Indeed, I am sure that the hon. Members representing Newham and Tower Hamlets have received a favourable response from their constituents who have used this service.
The Government have given a £60 million contribution towards the cost of funding the extension of the railway into the City. That connection into the City is a key factor

for the whole network — indeed, the prosperity of the region relies on that connection. The extension will be expensive, despite the fact that it is a short extension, because it will run through a tunnel. It would be wrong to say that the Government lay out money for the roads rather than the railway. Road fund taxpayers consistently complain that they do not see a return on their money and that they pay out a lot more money than is laid out on the roads. Indeed, the road users have made a contribution towards this railway.
Mention has been made of what the ex-deputy chairman of the LDDC said about steel. I am not quite sure to what he was referring, because certainly steel will be required in the structures. Perhaps he said that not so much steel will be required in the structures in the extension out to Beckton when compared to the first phase of the development. Undoubtedly, however, steel will be required to reinforce structures, especially those above ground. It is important to remember that the corners and angles of the proposed construction should be reduced. Another worrying feature about the Silvertown loop is the degree of noise generated by such loops. The loop that passes around the Beckton gasworks is more gentle than the loops elsewhere on the network; the reason for that is to try to reduce the amount of noise generated.
I believe that I have covered most of the points that have been raised. I cannot help the hon. Lady the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) about the origins of the name of the area known as Cyprus. I can only assume that that was the area where products from the island of Cyprus were landed. Indeed, I think that some settlers from that island also settled in the area. That is the best information that I have been able to get for the hon. Lady.
I am glad that hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome the Bill. I believe that it is a step in the right direction. I am delighted that, in the future, we hope that it can be extended elsewhere. I hope that we can now give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill, That it report to the House on the evidence presented to it concerning the adequacy, or otherwise, of the characteristics and capacity of the proposed railway in relation to the likely demands placed on the railway by existing and planned development in and around the area of the Royal Docks.—[Mr. Spearing.]

London Regional Transport Bill

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Mr. Neil Thorne: The London Regional Transport Bill has met most of the objectors' objections, apart from the outcome of the Pudding Mill lane issue. That has also been programmed, but there remains the issue of how it will be financed.
The remaining features of the LRT Bill are generally to be welcomed. Hon. Members on both sides will look forward to some of the improvements proposed in it, especially those that make a positive contribution to the safety of the network. I hope that, if we do not make as much progress as I would like on the Bill tonight, we shall be able to return to it soon, because it has some important features.
Pudding Mill lane is an important matter. The demand on the docklands light railway is such that some of the doubts in the past that it could be funded properly are beginning to evaporate. I hope that in the not-too-distant future it will be possible to raise the additional funds. We want to make provision for the extra facility of the dualling of that part of the track to cater for the extra facility moving into and out of Stratford. That is to be welcomed. The provisions concerning the length of trains, the amount of land required and the additional proposals to modify the legislation that is already in existence are to be welcomed. I hope the House will soon have an opportunity to put the measure on the statute book.

Mr. Chris Smith: We have little time left in which to consider the Bill. I am sure that as and when it returns to the Floor of the House, my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who so assiduously represent the borough of Newham and its people, will wish to raise the important issue of the financing of the Pudding Mill lane stations.
I want to take the two remaining minutes to address the issue of the Angel tube station, which, to a certain extent, is covered by the Bill. However, the provisions of the Bill will not be implemented by London Regional Transport, because that body's thinking about the future development of that station has progressed since the Bill was first brought in. The Angel tube station, which serves a large number of my constituents, is one of the more outdated and inefficient stations in the London Regional Transport network. I see that one of my constituents, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), who I know uses the Angel tube station frequently, is nodding his assent to that.
The two principal objections that my constituents have to the condition of the station concern, first, the inefficient operation of the lifts, and, secondly, the danger posed to passengers by the island platform nature of the station, especially at rush hour, when there is a lot of extra pressure because of the new office developments in the area pouring a large number of extra people into the station. I fear that the danger to those people is acute.
London Regional Transport's new proposals for escalators to replace the existing lifts and for the removal of the island platform to make station safer and more convenient for passengers are to be warmly welcomed. I hope that when the London Regional Transport (No. 2) Bill comes before the House all hon. Members will give it a warm welcome and a swift passage.
In the meantime, it is important to recognise that the provisions in the Bill that is before us are inadequate. London Regional Transport has recognised that, has revised its proposals, and has come up with something that is much more satisfactory and which will be to the benefit of my constituents.
It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
To be further considered upon Thursday 17 December.

Representation of the People

Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the two orders on representation of the people. I must tell the House that I have not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen).

Resolved,
That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) (No. 3) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 6th May, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) (No. 4) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 21st October, be approved. — [Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

CIVIL AVIATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

That the draft Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 23rd November, be approved.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Question agreed to.

MEDICINES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

That the draft Medicines (Exemptions from Licences) (Carbadox and Olaquindox) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Question agreed to.

SOCIAL SECURITY

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Amendment Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Question agreed to.

Outward Bound Trust

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrelll.]

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter that affects two charitable bodies. I am calling for a measure of justice between them. By appointment of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I am chairman of the trustees of the Community Projects Foundation, which is a charitable body that exists to apply community development techniques to social problems. It has been in existence for 20 years and some hon. Members have been connected with the foundation during those years. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) was one of the first directors of the organisation in its original form.
The sequence of events that I shall describe occurred in 1986. One of the projects that is organised by the Community Projects Foundation is in Dundee and is called the Dundee work start scheme. In the course of its work, which was to help unemployed people in an area of Dundee with a high incident of unemployment, a journalist was contracted to write a pamphlet that showed how the ideas that had been developed in the scheme might be extended to include the prospect of work overseas. In the pamphlet he used the term "outward bound activities" without using capital letters. In a summary at the end of the pamphlet he included in a list the term "outward bound training".
The people in the project then became aware of attempts to obtain a copy of the pamphlet. I shall shortly describe those attempts. After a time a copy was supplied to the person asking for it, and it appeared that that person was no less than a representative of the solicitors of the Outward Bound Trust, who objected to the fact that these terms had been used in the pamphlet. There was a terse exchange of correspondence and we were accused of unauthorised use of the terms. It was said that there was damage to the good will and the name of the Outward Bound Trust. The director of the Outward Bound Trust spoke in an affidavit of protection of the trademark. We believe that this was not correct and we found ourselves, in attempting to contest this, facing a writ. Our director received a summons.
At that point it became obvious to me that we had to proceed to a settlement. Despite the legal advice I had been given, it appeared that, as the Community Projects Foundation is almost wholly dependent upon a grant of the voluntary services unit of the Home Office, that being taxpayers' money, it could have been putting at risk some £20,000 by proceeding to legal action. I did not feel that that was proper for a charitable body funded by the taxpayer. Settlement was eventually reached out of court, which nevertheless meant that the Community Projects Foundation has lost in legal costs to both its own and the Outward Bound Trust solicitors a sum in excess of £6,500.
I do not doubt the good work that the Outward Bound Trust does and has done for many years; I make no assault on that whatsoever. Nor would I object to its right to defend its legitimate interests if it believed they were threatened, but it could have dealt with the matter altogether differently.
While this may not be the main thrust of my argument, I maintain that there was not really a case to be brought

by the Outward Bound Trust against the Community Projects Foundation. The term "outward bound" is in free use by practitioners of education and training, almost as a generic and often figurative term. I believe that people would be genuinely surprised to be summonsed for using the descriptive term "hoovering the carpet". By the same analogy, it is absurd that a term which has come to be used as widely as outward bound should be the subject of threatened legal action.
In attempting to look at how widely the term is used, various examples were uncovered. In an article in The Guardian education section, Michael Schweitzer, a former Gordonstoun pupil and bursar of Atlantic college, wrote:
You won't find a comprehensive not doing some element of outward bounding. The Outward Bound Schools are less important now—the dye has come off and run into the mainstream of schooling.
I uncovered a more absurd example, which refers to a training programme for zoo-bred rare monkeys to prepare them for the return to the wild state in Brazil. The language used is:
seven tamarins were enrolled in a primate's outward bound, a back-to-basics training programme.
One could add to those examples many times over to show that it was preposterous that there was thought to be a basis for any action. The advice I received was that there was no basis for action and that no damage had been suffered by the Outward Bound Trust.
The point to which I draw the attention of the House is the conduct of the Outward Bound Trust in handling this matter and the conduct of its solicitors, Messrs Humphreys and Co. of Bull Wharf, Redcliff street, Bristol, B 1 . I find it difficult to describe that firm of solicitors, on the basis of their handling of this, as other than grasping and deceitful. I believe that their conduct has been entirely unethical and ought to be reported to the Law Society. There was a totally undercover approach to the foundation in the search for a copy of the pamphlet. At no time was there a straightforward communication from the Outward Bound Trust, its director or chairman, simply to ask for this and say why they were asking for it, or to exress any concern.
The unorthodox and deceitful approach appeared to begin with Mr. Ian Fothergill, the director of the Outward Bound Trust. In an affidavit that he signed in 1986 Mr. Fothergill states that he instructed the trust's solicitors to try to obtain a copy of the material. Thereafter he states in the affidavit that in July 1986 Mrs. S. Nicholas, an employee of Humphreys and Co. telephoned the Dundee office of "Work-start Overseas" and asked to be sent some publicity material. She did not identify herself. Then, according to Mr. Fothergill, at the beginning of August 1986 a second telephone call was made by Mr. Humphreys giving the name Jenkins, asking to be sent publicity material. It is incredible that a firm of solicitors should behave in that way and moreover that they should do so at the behest of an organisation like the Outward Bound Trust, which we have always believed to be an entirely reputable organisation. Further attempts were made in other telephone calls on an anonymous basis.
The first that the foundation knew that a problem existed was when a formal letter arrived from Messrs Humphreys and Co. The solicitors for the foundation felt throughout their dealings with Messrs Humphreys and Co. that they appeared to be dealing with lawyers who were bent on trouble, who did not appear to want to hurry to a settlement. Was the behaviour of Humphreys and Co.


directly condoned by the Outward Bound Trust? Was it controlling the solicitors or were the solicitors simply taking hold and running with it?
Some clue about the nature of the solicitors can also be found in the fact that, when the settlement was reached, they filed costs of £7,057·15, which were deemed by the foundation's lawyer to be absurd. It was recommended that at further expense the matter should be taken before a taxing master, and that happened during the course of 1987. The amount was reduced to £4,483·21. That was a sign of the excessive approach adopted by that firm of solicitors, with or without the express approval of the Outward Bound Trust.
The question is not whether that was the right way for the Outward Bound Trust to behave towards the Community Projects Foundation. However, when Mr. Fothergill states in his affidavit that as director of the trust it is one of his responsibilities to follow up and prevent the use of the name "outward bound" by third parties who without authorisation use it to refer to activities that are unconnected with the trust, he should discharge that responsibility on a totally even-handed basis.
I discovered that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) described his impressions of the 1986 Labour party conference in an article in The House Magazine. He included a passage reading:
So conference is really a multi-function event, a meeting with old friends, a test of the mood of the party, a rally, an Outward Bound course (I survived), a beer festival and a launching pad for egos and ideas".
I understand that the hon. Gentleman was not pursued by the Outward Bound Trust or its solicitors.
On 5 January 1987, an article appeared in The Independent by its labour correspondent, Mr. David Felton. It described courses run by Ashridge management college. It included a passage which referred to "outward-bound type activities" without using capital letters. I sought the views of the editor of The Independent and was later assured by Mr. Whittam Smith that he had not been sued by the Outward Bound Trust.
It appears that the Outward Bound Trust may be selective in whom it seeks to tackle in terms of any alleged infringement of its trade mark or familiar name. If that is so, it is an absolute disgrace, because in this case the trust was picking on a body that is almost entirely reliant on taxpayers' money: money given for a specific purpose, which has ended up in the hands of solicitors. That is a scandal, and it shall not go unnoticed by those who support the Outward Bound Trust—who include Her Majesty's Government.
My hon. Friend's Department funded the trust to the tune of some £13,000 in 1985. Presumably a similar amount was spent in 1986, and it has also received grant from the Scottish Office. I find it incredible that a body that is supposedly trying to do good work in the community should tackle another body with a similar purpose, as the trust did, to cause such a loss.
In raising the matter on the Adjournment, I seek not only to draw the matter to wider attention, but to suggest to my hon. Friend that, if the Government continue to fund the trust, they seek assurances on its future conduct and establish whether it will refrain from taking further action of this kind. I believe that justice would truly be done if a sum no greater and no less than £6,528·91—the amount of taxpayers' money needlessly wasted by the trust—were deducted from its future grant, and perhaps,

through the realms of Government, brought back into the coffers of the Community Projects Foundation, so that it could do its work as the Government intend.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): Let me begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) on his success in obtaining the Adjournment debate. In the traditional role of Back Bencher, he has raised some serious issues.
Until as recently as July, I was the Minister responsible for the youth service. In that role, I became increasingly aware of the valuable part that voluntary youth organisations can play in assisting young people to become responsible adults. The ministerial brief for the youth service has now passed to my noble Friend the Baroness Hooper, but I am handling tonight's motion.
The debate provides me with an opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of the voluntary youth organisations, and to reaffirm the Government's commitment to supporting and encouraging their work. My noble Friend's responsibilities in the Department of Education and Science include supervision of the grant aid of about £3 million a year which the Department makes available to 64 national voluntary youth organisations. At present, grant is given to support the headquarters administrative costs of those organisations, new developments in their work and the capital cost of regional and national projects.
There is a wide range of such organisations, national and local. Some, such as the major uniformed organisations, are household names, and most of us have experienced their useful influence, either directly or through our children. It is estimated that 90 per cent. of children and young people have some contact with a voluntary youth organisation in their lives, and that at any one time those organisations reach 6 million young members and users. About half a million adult volunteers are generally recognised to be involved in their work.
Some of the household names among those organisations are particularly famous; some are less well known, but they have a very large membership. Others — the Outward Bound trust is one — have established a reputation for undertaking a particular type of challenging work with young people, and, in some cases, with adults.
It is for the trust and other voluntary bodies to define the essence of their work and the routes that they believe will best lead to success in working with young people. Each organisation has an individual approach, but one element of this work is taking young people away from their day-to-day concerns and facing them with challenge. Those challenges have often been in the natural environment — trekking, mountaineering, orienteering and learning survival skills.
One of the keys to the success of these organisations is that young people are given opportunities to think about their experiences and achievements as individuals and as a team. This helps to increase understanding, confidence and motivation. Increasingly, different challenges are being introduced, including those that arise from giving social service in hospitals, homes for the elderly and disabled, and work with other young people.
I did not detect in my hon. Friend"s remarks a wish to call into question the value of the Outward Bound Trust's work. What I have said shows the value that is placed by


the Government on the work of that trust and other organisations working in like sectors and, more generally, our support for development, in local authority and voluntary sectors, of the youth service and of constructive activities that increase young people's confidence, motivation and skills.
My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot offer a qualified opinion about the use by one organisation of a term that is directly or indirectly associated with another. That is not a matter for Ministers.
My Department gives headquarters grants for specific purposes and on condition that they are applied solely for those purposes. The grant that my Department has made available to the Outward Bound Trust represents only a part of its total income—less than 10 per cent. of its income for headquarters operations.
We have yet to determine the total amount available for distribution for headquarters grants for the 1988–89 financial year, but we have begun to consider individual organisations' applications. We are currently considering the Outward Bound Trust's application for grant for 1988–89. The House will understand that I am unable to say what the result of that consideration will be. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall carefully consider all relevant factors, including income that it receives from other sources.
I undertake to draw this debate to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Ten o'clock.